PDA

View Full Version : Specs. on the Dunlop Max 200G


TearsOfGlass
05-12-2005, 06:38 PM
I was wondering if anybody would know what the specs. are to the Dunlop Max 200G. (i.e. head size, weight, rec. string ten., point HL or HH, etc.) Thanks.

ffrpg
05-12-2005, 10:09 PM
I was wondering if anybody would know what the specs. are to the Dunlop Max 200G. (i.e. head size, weight, rec. string ten., point HL or HH, etc.) Thanks.

String Tension: 50-60lbs
Head Size: About 85 sq in (I'd say a little smaller though)
Balance: I think it's 6 pts headlight. I don't remember, it's in that area though
Weight: 12.5-13oz

max200G
05-13-2005, 08:11 AM
The max 200G spesifications :

Weight:12.9 oz
Ballance:32 1/2 cm HL
Inertia:355
Flex Strung:36
Beam:22mm

andirez
05-13-2005, 08:52 AM
Flex Strung:36


I really wonder how it feels to play with such an incredibly low flex.

AndrewD
05-13-2005, 09:10 AM
Not a racquet for topspin. If you're happy hitting flat and with slice then you'll do fine. Personally, I think if you can get used to the frame design (boxy and an odd feel in the hand) you'll find the most comfortable hit you've ever had. Smaller head than 85sq, soft flex but you dont feel the racquet flexing due to the graphite injection. Very cushioned response and operates best at low tensions. Thin gauge strings work best and give an interesting response. Stable like you wouldn't believe. The racquet does not twist even when you hit off centre. Due to the boxy, graphite injected frame the ball is likely to still travel the length of the court.

Another way to put it is, a huge number of Americans rave about the POG and PS 6.0 85. For an equal number of, or more, Europeans, Australians and Brits this is the racquet they rave about. While they've been able to make cheap imitations of the Wilson and Prince they've never been able to come close to copying the Dunlop. Pretty much the most unique 'players frame' (by that I mean used by top professional players) there's ever been and if I could buy them new Id still be using it.

ffrpg
05-13-2005, 10:14 AM
The flex isn't that low, but still low. I believe it was around 46.

tandayu
05-13-2005, 06:08 PM
This is a good racket and unique. I thought it would be hard to play with this heavy frame, thick beam, and smaller head in comparison with even the PS 6.0. However, with low string tension, the feel at impact is very lively. Surprisingly good control with low string tension, and very crisp at hitting volley at midcourt.

On top of that, as other posters has mentioned, this frame is nice on my arm, does not result in soreness, fatigue, stiffness, etc. after 3 days in a row of 4 sets of tennis.

I agree with AndrewD, this racket is also one of the frame to be remembered and chosen. It is one of my favorites.

AndrewD
05-13-2005, 08:53 PM
Kind of bowled over to read that it was 12.9 ounces. I played the 200G from the time I was 15 until I stopped playing competitive tennis at 20 and the weight never even occurred to me. Makes me kind of wince because I had a fair amount of lead tape up at the 12, 9, 6 and 3 o'clock positions. So, if the 200G was 12.9 ounces then I must have been swinging something close to 14 ounces LOL.

I guess that's why, when I picked up the Head Prestige Pro which weighs pretty much on 12.5 ounces Ive felt right at home. Actually, the Prestige Pro is the closest thing Ive come to the old 200G in terms of weight of shot and comfort. Serves better than the 200G but doesn't volley as well.

Still trying to find that elusive replacement for my greatly missed old stick. Does anyone who has played the 200G know how the Wilson ROK compares. Dont expect the same kind of 'fee' (that's too unique) but something in the same ballpark would be nice.

ffrpg
05-13-2005, 09:32 PM
Still trying to find that elusive replacement for my greatly missed old stick. Does anyone who has played the 200G know how the Wilson ROK compares. Dont expect the same kind of 'fee' (that's too unique) but something in the same ballpark would be nice.


The Wilson Rok is a pretty sweet frame. I enjoy it a lot. It's got a fairly large sweetspot, not as big as the Max 200g though. The Rok is also fairly comfortable to play with. The Rok is definitely more spin friendly (I even played with 16g string) than the Max 200g. Overall, it's not a bad compromise to the Max 200g. Of course it won't be the same, but I feel the Rok is more solid and stable than the Prestige Classic.

gash-b
05-13-2005, 09:49 PM
http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/MW200G/MW200GReview.html

It's the older muscle weave review, but next to the picture of the old Max 200g, there are some specs listed. The head size is not listed, but I held mine up to a ProStaff 85, and it is slightly smaller.

Jet Rink
05-13-2005, 09:53 PM
... The head size is not listed, but I held mine up to a ProStaff 85, and it is slightly smaller.

Gash - amazing, we must be on the same wavelength! I just did the same and concur.

Jet

AndrewD
05-13-2005, 10:43 PM
ffrpg,

thanks very much for the input. Unfortunately you can't get the ROK out here any longer but I might just take a punt on it in the hopes it plays up to expectations. One of the big bonuses would be, going on the TW review, that you need to string it quite loosely. I use the Prestige at 45lbs which is still controllable and reminds me, vaguely LOL, of the old Dunlop. Is the ROK your current frame ? If so, Id be curious to ask a few more questions about it.

gash-b,
I wish I could find my old 'Tennis' magazine or 'World Tennis' magazine that actually has a review of the 200G. I can't be 100% certain but Im pretty sure the headsize is listed as 82sq.

That may sound a bit small to most of you, however, if you've ever played with the 200G -or get to play with it- then compare that headsize to the Wilson 85sq's I think you'll agree it feels a touch smaller. I know, at the time, the Prince 90sq felt obscenely large in comparison LOL.

gash-b
05-14-2005, 06:13 PM
Hi Jet,
When I first saw the post, I recalled seeing the specs somewhere before, and I remembered the old MW 200G review.

Andrew,
The Dunlop site here in Japan has a nice page about the history of the rackets. It's in Japanese, but here is the translation for the Max 200G Pro-II.
http://tennis.dunlop.co.jp/gear/racket/history/history.html

1988, Grand Slam Achievement Model
23% Mid (84 square inches)
Material: Graphite, Nylon
Size: SL-2,3, L-3,4

I am not sure what the term "23% Mid" means. However, for the other rackets, "46% Mid" is listed for a 100 square inch racket.

I guess one way to really determine the size is to take a string, run it along the inner diameter of the frame. Then, by forming the string into a square or rectangle, one can easily calculate the area. I may try it later....

AndrewD
05-14-2005, 07:03 PM
gash-b,
thanks for that, very kind of you.

I seem to recall, in days gone by, that they referred to racquets in that percentage fashion. I can't remember exactly what the original size is, but I believe it was a standard sized head (as on a wooden racquet).

So, if a standard head is 68sq, then 23% larger = 83 and 46% larger than standard = 99. Guess that makes sense. That would mean the Dunlop is 23% larger than standard, so has a headsize of 83.6sq, the PS 6.0 85 has a headsize of 25% larger than standard which works out to be 85sq and a Babolat PD has a headsize of 46% larger than standard which = 99.28

Thanks again, wonderfully informative post.

Great to be able to see the development of the 200G, from the 150G (slightly smaller head I think) to its later versions. Interestingly, there's a guy on **** at the moment selling both a 150G and 200G.

gash-b
05-14-2005, 08:08 PM
Hello Andrew,

Sure, no problem at all. It's always interesting to discuss famous vintage models.

You might be interested in the following page.
http://www50.tok2.com/home/sabe/tennis/titem99.htm

I have posted this link before in other threads in the past, but just in case you haven't seen it, you may want to check it out. Sorry if it is in Japanese, but the author seems to have a rather large collection. He gives his impression on a lot of rackets, so it's quite an interesting page. At the very least, you can take a look at the pictures.

I know I have a magazine somewhere with a lot of info regarding the Max 200G. If I can find it, I will send you a post later.

Deuce
05-15-2005, 01:45 AM
Slazenger (Dunlop's 'sister company') also had a few Injection Molded frames in the 80s that looked quite similar to the Dunlops, except for the graphics.

yip kok kuin
05-17-2005, 07:25 PM
Still trying to find that elusive replacement for my greatly missed old stick. Does anyone who has played the 200G know how the Wilson ROK compares. Dont expect the same kind of 'fee' (that's too unique) but something in the same ballpark would be nice.

I have both. The one thing that is similar is the ROK like the 200G has ton of control and actually plays better if strung low. Really low like 42 pound. That's where it feels a little more power and more control!!. A strange combination as usually you have to give up one to get the other. Beside that, they are different. For those with injury, max200G (or any of the rest of the injection series) is the better choice. Playing with the injection series (I have tried all of them except the max500i), is like having a massage done to your shoulder. No wristy stuff here as they are pretty heavy. This series of racket should not have been discontinued. Do you agree?

PrestigeClassic
05-18-2005, 03:31 AM
Hi Jet,
When I first saw the post, I recalled seeing the specs somewhere before, and I remembered the old MW 200G review.

Andrew,
The Dunlop site here in Japan has a nice page about the history of the rackets. It's in Japanese, but here is the translation for the Max 200G Pro-II.
http://tennis.dunlop.co.jp/gear/racket/history/history.html

1988, Grand Slam Achievement Model
23% Mid (84 square inches)
Material: Graphite, Nylon
Size: SL-2,3, L-3,4

I am not sure what the term "23% Mid" means. However, for the other rackets, "46% Mid" is listed for a 100 square inch racket.

I guess one way to really determine the size is to take a string, run it along the inner diameter of the frame. Then, by forming the string into a square or rectangle, one can easily calculate the area. I may try it later....

I am not so sure the string method would really be all that accurate. Perhaps a more accurate method would involve imagining the head as an ellipse and using the ellipse area formula.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/mthareaellipse.html

gash-b
05-18-2005, 04:16 AM
Thanks for the ellipse formula. Just looking at the racket, the head seems to be an ellipse, in other words, not a tear drop shape, so the formula should be okay.

To answer the question about the head size, I just did a rough measurement, and here are the results.
Area = (pi)(long axis=30 cm)(short axis=23 cm)/4 = 541.65 cm^2
Therefore, in in^2 you get:83.96 in^2

Not quite 85 square inches, but pretty close. The 84 square inch figure listed on the Dunlop site seems to be right.

ilian
09-06-2008, 12:43 PM
I have both. The one thing that is similar is the ROK like the 200G has ton of control and actually plays better if strung low. Really low like 42 pound. That's where it feels a little more power and more control!!. A strange combination as usually you have to give up one to get the other. Beside that, they are different. For those with injury, max200G (or any of the rest of the injection series) is the better choice. Playing with the injection series (I have tried all of them except the max500i), is like having a massage done to your shoulder. No wristy stuff here as they are pretty heavy. This series of racket should not have been discontinued. Do you agree?

I agree 100%!!! Bring it back!

Azzurri
09-06-2008, 07:11 PM
It took JMac using it to get any attention. It was around for 4 years before he used it. That is a bit surprising.

Deuce
09-06-2008, 08:14 PM
It took JMac using it to get any attention. It was around for 4 years before he used it. That is a bit surprising.
McEnroe began using it in 1983, I believe. Are you sure it was on the market in 1979? Seems a little early.

Considering that it came on the market at a time when midsize graphite frames were just entering the market, in the midst of people - pros and recreational players alike - making the conversion from standard size wood frames, it is not surprising at all, but perfectly logical that people didn't notice it until a top pro began using it.
Patrick was using it before John - John borrowed his brother's frame one day, and that's how he began with it.

Many players were still playing with wood at that time in the early 80s.

vsbabolat
09-06-2008, 08:53 PM
It took JMac using it to get any attention. It was around for 4 years before he used it. That is a bit surprising.

I seem to remember the Max 200G coming out in 1982. The Black Max (a very different racquet) came out around 1979 though.

There was also a standard head size of the Injection Molded Frames called the Max 150G that came out at the same time as the Max 200G. The Max 150G was not sold in the U.S.A.
McEnroe began using it in 1983, I believe. Are you sure it was on the market in 1979? Seems a little early.

Considering that it came on the market at a time when midsize graphite frames were just entering the market, in the midst of people - pros and recreational players alike - making the conversion from standard size wood frames, it is not surprising at all, but perfectly logical that people didn't notice it until a top pro began using it.
Patrick was using it before John - John borrowed his brother's frame one day, and that's how he began with it.

Many players were still playing with wood at that time in the early 80s.
Deuce, I agree with you.

max
09-07-2008, 03:05 AM
A simply wonderful frame. Perhaps not so good for serving, but excellent for approach shots, half-volleys, volleys and even some nice, flat, wopping ground strokes.

Azzurri
09-08-2008, 09:00 AM
McEnroe began using it in 1983, I believe. Are you sure it was on the market in 1979? Seems a little early.

Considering that it came on the market at a time when midsize graphite frames were just entering the market, in the midst of people - pros and recreational players alike - making the conversion from standard size wood frames, it is not surprising at all, but perfectly logical that people didn't notice it until a top pro began using it.
Patrick was using it before John - John borrowed his brother's frame one day, and that's how he began with it.

Many players were still playing with wood at that time in the early 80s.

From what I could gather, the Max 200g was introduced in 1980. JMac began playing it in 1983 (you are correct, I thought 84 for some reason. I read his book, just thought it was 1984). But I have seen pics of the racquet advertisement and it showed 1980. Don't forget, the POG was ontroduced in 1979 or earlier.

I always thought the racquet came out when JM started playing it, but am surprised it took so long considering it was such a heralded racquet.

Azzurri
09-08-2008, 09:19 AM
I seem to remember the Max 200G coming out in 1982. The Black Max (a very different racquet) came out around 1979 though.

There was also a standard head size of the Injection Molded Frames called the Max 150G that came out at the same time as the Max 200G. The Max 150G was not sold in the U.S.A.

Deuce, I agree with you.

check this..pic notates 1980. I also thought it came out in 1983, but not according to the info under picture..could it be wrong?

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/MW200G/MW200GReview.html

More

http://tennis.about.com/od/racquetsballsstringing/a/evolmodracquet_3.htm

MAX PLY
09-08-2008, 09:49 AM
1980 sounds about right. I switched to it as a college player in either spring of my junior year or the fall of my senior year (I graduated in 1982) and I know the frame had been out for a little while by then. I was playing with a Dunlop A-Player mid-sized wood at the time I switched. My recollection was McEnroe switched sometime later than that (I think Patrick was playing with the frame at the time and John tried some of Patrick's frames but that could be rumor). I played with them forever (and still have a few new frames that are for my old age playing days :).

Azzurri
09-08-2008, 10:02 AM
^^ thanks for the confirmation. :)

vsbabolat
09-08-2008, 10:35 AM
check this..pic notates 1980. I also thought it came out in 1983, but not according to the info under picture..could it be wrong?

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/MW200G/MW200GReview.html

More

http://tennis.about.com/od/racquetsballsstringing/a/evolmodracquet_3.htm

The pic is wrong. In that pic is a Max 200G with 1986-1987 cosmetics.

Anyway here is photo from the Dunlop Catalog from 1982 saying the Max 200G and Max 150G are new for the 1982/1983 Catalog.
http://80s-tennis.com/pages/dunlop8283_6.html

Here is the Translation:
The new Max!

Dunlop graphite from a cast racquet.
The enfolgreich Max 150G has a big brother. Max 200G This new Max 200G, the sensational gleihe plastic technology Polymid with 30% graphite fibers in Injected-Molding-Forfeited Ahern vemrbeitet He has good about the same characteristics of: maximum strength at the lowest weight is much force in little effort!

The Max 200G was manufactured for 10 years from 1982-1992.

Azzurri
09-08-2008, 11:21 AM
The pic is wrong. In that pic is a Max 200G with 1986-1987 cosmetics.

Anyway here is photo from the Dunlop Catalog from 1982 saying the Max 200G and Max 150G are new for the 1982/1983 Catalog.
http://80s-tennis.com/pages/dunlop8283_6.html

Here is the Translation:
The new Max!

Dunlop graphite from a cast racquet.
The enfolgreich Max 150G has a big brother. Max 200G This new Max 200G, the sensational gleihe plastic technology Polymid with 30% graphite fibers in Injected-Molding-Forfeited Ahern vemrbeitet He has good about the same characteristics of: maximum strength at the lowest weight is much force in little effort!

The Max 200G was manufactured for 10 years from 1982-1992.

I see the picture does look odd now that you mention it. The black grip was pre 1984, but the stripes look like the newer model (1986-whenever). That advertisement does not really prove much either. I am still looking for something definitive.:)

Azzurri
09-08-2008, 11:22 AM
1980 sounds about right. I switched to it as a college player in either spring of my junior year or the fall of my senior year (I graduated in 1982) and I know the frame had been out for a little while by then. I was playing with a Dunlop A-Player mid-sized wood at the time I switched. My recollection was McEnroe switched sometime later than that (I think Patrick was playing with the frame at the time and John tried some of Patrick's frames but that could be rumor). I played with them forever (and still have a few new frames that are for my old age playing days :).

Are you certain? If you graduated in 1982, then you must have had the racquet in 1981...yes?

vsbabolat
09-08-2008, 11:26 AM
I see the picture does look odd now that you mention it. The black grip was pre 1984, but the stripes look like the newer model (1986-whenever). That advertisement does not really prove much either. I am still looking for something definitive.:)

The first Max 200G cosmetics from 1982-1985 had two green stripes. The first year of the Max 200G had a black perforated grip. Then in 1983 grip change to a black grip with Dunlop written small in gold running through out the grip.

It is definitive that the Max 200G came out in 1982.

FloridaAG
09-08-2008, 11:29 AM
I bought mine in 1985 -

bluetrain4
09-08-2008, 11:47 AM
In high school, I used a 200g derivative - the Max 400i, and absolutely loved it. It was lighter, but still heavy, and stiffer, but not "stiff" like today's frames. Same injection molding - incredibly stable.

I had friends and saw guys at the courts with 200gs and other than hitting with one once for a few minutes, I never used one.

I wish I would have experienced the 200g in full.

MAX PLY
09-08-2008, 01:19 PM
Are you certain? If you graduated in 1982, then you must have had the racquet in 1981...yes?

It is possible that I didn't switch until the spring season (which would have been '82) but I do know I played the spring season with it and there are pictures. Since we got our racquets from the Company reps (in our team's case we had deals with Head, Prince and Dunlop for racquets, Boast for clothes and Nike for shoes) in those days and there wasn't the retail proliferation we have today, I have no idea whether it was available to the general public then.

MAX PLY
09-08-2008, 01:27 PM
I also just did a quick Google search and found a book titled Materials in Sports Equipment by Mike Jenkins and it cites on p. 226 that the 200g was a 1980 vintage. From what I can tell, it looks like McEnroe started playing with it in 1983 which is when its popularity really began.

vsbabolat
09-08-2008, 02:27 PM
I also just did a quick Google search and found a book titled Materials in Sports Equipment by Mike Jenkins and it cites on p. 226 that the 200g was a 1980 vintage. From what I can tell, it looks like McEnroe started playing with it in 1983 which is when its popularity really began.

What it says and I quote is " In 1980 Dunlop developed a unique injection molding process used for their popular Max 200G...." No where does it say that the Max 200G came out in 1980. What Jenkins says is that Dunlop Developed the Injection Molding Process in 1980. There was a Injection Molded racquet that came out before the Max 200G that was the the standard head size Max 150G.

http://80s-tennis.com/pages/dunlop8283_6.html
The 1982/83 Dunlop Catalog:
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/dunloptennis8283_3.jpg
The English Translation:
"The new Max!

Dunlop graphite from a cast racquet.
The Max 150G has a big brother the Max 200G. This new Max 200G, the sensational gleihe plastic technology Polymid with 30% graphite fibers in Injected-Molding-Forfeited Ahern vemrbeitet He has good about the same characteristics of: maximum strength at the lowest weight is much force in little effort!

The Max 200G is the art piece of plastic in Midsize it has 24% more racquet face. The sweet spot is almost 2 1 / 2 times larger than that of a Normal racquet head. The advantages of the new technology Dunlop will now also play all Midsize racquet benefit - with the MAX 200G
MAX 150G and the New MAX 200G - Dunlop Graphite Racquets from a cast."

Here is a Dunlop ad from early 1982 with the whole Dunlop line that was available in the U.S. in early 1982.
http://80s-tennis.com/pages/dunlop-racquets_82.html
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w50/vsbabolat/dunlop-racquets_82.jpg

ilian
09-08-2008, 06:06 PM
1982-83 seems to be the right time for the introduction of the MAX 200G.

markwillplay
09-08-2008, 08:07 PM
the head is small but the sweet spot on mine with tension at about 55 is huge. Its like the hole face is fairly sweet and this really shows on volleys. I think it does serve pretty well..the heft of the stick really does a lot of the work if you let it.

ilian
09-08-2008, 08:12 PM
the head is small but the sweet spot on mine with tension at about 55 is huge. Its like the hole face is fairly sweet and this really shows on volleys. I think it does serve pretty well..the heft of the stick really does a lot of the work if you let it.

That is very true. Just relax, hit on time and the racquet does it for you... The whole head of this racquet is a sweet spot. It is a wonder in the world of tennis racquets. It produces the most solid strokes ever. It is almost unbelievable how this racquet feels. I would say magic... ...or INJECTION MOLDING + perfect weight and ballance.

max
09-09-2008, 07:25 AM
I found that it matters not what string you put in your Max 200 G: the frame is pretty much the defining factor. Of course, tension counts, and a thinner gauge gives you a tad more oomph. . . but I never really found the frame to be very string-sensitive.

MAX PLY
09-09-2008, 07:42 AM
I used to string mine at 50 lbs. with Gosen OG Sheep Micro 17. Very forgiving with that string at that tension. Much tighter than that and the racquet had a tendency to spoon. Very solid, woody feel which, for me, made it an easy transition frame from the wood days. Also very easy on the arm.

Bud
09-09-2008, 10:27 PM
1992-93 seems to be the right time for the introduction of the MAX 200G.

Do you mean 1982-83?

m1stuhxsp4rk5
09-09-2008, 10:55 PM
I really wonder how it feels to play with such an incredibly low flex.

the flex is awesome one of the best rackets i every hit with in terms of feel.

ilian
09-10-2008, 07:55 AM
Do you mean 1982-83?

Yes, sorry...:)

gsquicksilver
09-10-2008, 09:45 AM
is it me, or does some of the earlier models weigh heavier than the later models?

Tomas
09-10-2008, 10:00 AM
I played many years with Max 150G. I have never played with a better racket. I am still hunting for a new racket that's closest to the feeling of Max 150G. My current racket is Dunlop Mfil 200, which is not so bad with some lead. I also have my eye on Babolat Pure Storm Ltd.

Tomas

Rabbit
09-10-2008, 10:12 AM
1980 sounds about right. I switched to it as a college player in either spring of my junior year or the fall of my senior year (I graduated in 1982) and I know the frame had been out for a little while by then. I was playing with a Dunlop A-Player mid-sized wood at the time I switched. My recollection was McEnroe switched sometime later than that (I think Patrick was playing with the frame at the time and John tried some of Patrick's frames but that could be rumor). I played with them forever (and still have a few new frames that are for my old age playing days :).

That is exactly right. The story that was told was that John was having some arm issues, tendonitis. He was home and went to hit with Patrick and PMac was playing with the 200G. PMac suggested John try it and the rest is history.

The original 200G is one of the few rackets I never hit with. I had changed to the Wilson ProStaff when these two frames and the Prestige were the popular frames. For whatever reason, I liked the ProStaff so much I wasn't interested in hitting with either of the others...

ilian
09-10-2008, 01:42 PM
I understand what you are saying... I felt the same way with the MAX 200G and didn't want to try any other racquet. For that reason, I had absolutely no clue what to switch to when Dunlop discontinued the racquet. By the way, I like the Wilson PS 6.0, but I absolutely hate the Head Prestige.

hrstrat57
09-10-2008, 06:15 PM
The first Max 200G cosmetics from 1982-1985 had two green stripes. The first year of the Max 200G had a black perforated grip. Then in 1983 grip change to a black grip with Dunlop written small in gold running through out the grip.

It is definitive that the Max 200G came out in 1982.

I agree with this.

I have a two green stripe version....with a black leather grip and two with the green/gold graphics pictured in your 9/8 post above.

Of course as I have said before all the graphics on two of the racquets have almost completely rubbed off.

One of the flakey gold graphic frames is near mint....both of the gold/green frames have fairway leather grips.....

If I recall correctly I bought the gold flake graphic frames new in about 1986 and picked up the older version used....prob about 1990....but my memory is as faded as the two frames...

Although I am a big string guy I agree that these frames play beautifully regardless of string. I strung with Prince syn gut 16 or 17 for years at 55 lbs....of course when I could afford to treat myself to some gut....well the feel and control became ridiculous.....it felt like throwing a ball with the racquet at times.....and for the 83 frame size the racquet has a big sweet spot, much bigger IMO than a PS 85.

Again, repeating myself from other posts and threads but a strong serve and volleyer can still even today search long and hard and not find a better stick for carving it up in the frontcourt. I put the 200g's back in my bag for a couple of months last summer. I found when I was attacking the net they were as good as I remembered but when I tired(I am 10/20 yrs older now since I played these frames) and had to stay back and defend the baseline it was hard to create enough pace and depth to stay in the point for long.

My 2 Head i prestige MP have bumped them out for good. Serve with more pace(tho less spin potential) volley nearly as good and hit big from the backcourt. Similar precision and a lot more forgiving.....

I have a couple of PS 85's / sv and china which also got back in the bag for a bit and they suffered the same fate....though the ps 85 hung in at the baseline a bit better than the max 200g's.

Again, amazingly I have never played an original Head Prestige much to my continued dismay. I will snag one at some point.

Azzurri
09-11-2008, 10:47 AM
I understand what you are saying... I felt the same way with the MAX 200G and didn't want to try any other racquet. For that reason, I had absolutely no clue what to switch to when Dunlop discontinued the racquet. By the way, I like the Wilson PS 6.0, but I absolutely hate the Head Prestige.

The cost of the racquet compared to the PS 85 was almost $100 less. One of the reasons why so many people had this stick..great racquet and great price.

gsquicksilver
09-11-2008, 12:50 PM
i got 3 currently strung right now, with no mods except for an overgrip.

my old one, with the "thick" arrows weigh in at about 14.5 oz

my two other ones, with the johnny mac signature weight in at about 12.6 oz

do any of you on here notice that the older versions weigh heavier?

ilian
09-11-2008, 01:49 PM
That is possible, even though I have never weighed any year MAX 200G that was heavier than another.

Azzurri
09-12-2008, 06:44 AM
i got 3 currently strung right now, with no mods except for an overgrip.

my old one, with the "thick" arrows weigh in at about 14.5 oz

my two other ones, with the johnny mac signature weight in at about 12.6 oz

do any of you on here notice that the older versions weigh heavier?

I seem to remember the PRO version was either heavier or lighter. I also had an older one and it seemed very hefty, but I doubt it was that much of a difference. I am curious if anyone has these two models of the 200g and if there is any difference.

pmerk34
09-12-2008, 06:55 AM
I seem to remember the PRO version was either heavier or lighter. I also had an older one and it seemed very hefty, but I doubt it was that much of a difference. I am curious if anyone has these two models of the 200g and if there is any difference.

Is there some reason reason why a tiny % of recreational players cannot move beyond a 25 year old frame?

gsquicksilver
09-12-2008, 07:32 AM
Is there some reason reason why a tiny % of recreational players cannot move beyond a 25 year old frame?

have you ever hit with one before? if you have, you would know what we're talking about.

pmerk34
09-12-2008, 07:48 AM
have you ever hit with one before? if you have, you would know what we're talking about.

Yes back in the 80's and early 90's my brother played with that frame.

Azzurri
09-12-2008, 08:51 AM
Is there some reason reason why a tiny % of recreational players cannot move beyond a 25 year old frame?

huh? did you read my sig?

i guess 200g and a few other classics feel better than all of today's new sticks.

Azzurri
09-12-2008, 08:51 AM
Yes back in the 80's and early 90's my brother played with that frame.

then maybe you were a beginner and had no clue...

pmerk34
09-12-2008, 08:56 AM
then maybe you were a beginner and had no clue...


And maybe you need to calm down skippy.

Azzurri
09-12-2008, 09:02 AM
And maybe you need to calm down skippy.

uh, not excited nor hyper. You are obviously clueless as to the benefits to the racquet. if I said something to upset you, then you may need to calm down. please don't post on this thread since you have NO CLUE about this racquet. By the way, your brother playing this racquet is useless.

pmerk34
09-12-2008, 09:12 AM
uh, not excited nor hyper. You are obviously clueless as to the benefits to the racquet. if I said something to upset you, then you may need to calm down. please don't post on this thread since you have NO CLUE about this racquet. By the way, your brother playing this racquet is useless.

It's an old discontinued racquet, not a family member. It was once a great frame, now it's an out dated relic. Try the Aerogel 200. No need to get all personal.

Azzurri
09-12-2008, 09:28 AM
It's an old discontinued racquet, not a family member. It was once a great frame, now it's an out dated relic. Try the Aerogel 200. No need to get all personal.

please explain how I got all personal? You are clueless as to the benefits of the 200g. There are still a limited # of people that play this racquet for pure fun. I am one of them. You could care less about the racquet and frankly by your tone you never could handle it. So please go to a thread that you may be able to provide some educated insights, but its painfully obvious you are utterly and completely clueless about the 200g.

So anyone with a 1967 splitwindow Corvette should just throw it in a junk yard because its a relic and outdated??? Wow, talk about clueless...ITS A CLASSIC AND IT DEMANDS RESPECT. Hope I made myself clear.

please go. You have not provided anything to this thread. It has no place for debates such as yours.

ilian
09-12-2008, 09:34 AM
It is not only few recreational players who like this racquet. I played on the tour and I absolutely love that racquet as do many of my friends. Granted, it is not suited for everyone's game, but it is a great frame. According to me and many others, Dunlop MAX 200G is the best racquet ever made. Injection moulding is a big reason for that and it is sad that is was abandoned.

pmerk34
09-12-2008, 09:41 AM
please explain how I got all personal? You are clueless as to the benefits of the 200g. There are still a limited # of people that play this racquet for pure fun. I am one of them. You could care less about the racquet and frankly by your tone you never could handle it. So please go to a thread that you may be able to provide some educated insights, but its painfully obvious you are utterly and completely clueless about the 200g.

So anyone with a 1967 splitwindow Corvette should just throw it in a junk yard because its a relic and outdated??? Wow, talk about clueless...ITS A CLASSIC AND IT DEMANDS RESPECT. Hope I made myself clear.

please go. You have not provided anything to this thread. It has no place for debates such as yours.


Ok you made your point.

pmerk34
09-12-2008, 09:45 AM
It is not only few recreational players who like this racquet. I played on the tour and I absolutely love that racquet as do many of my friends. Granted, it is not suited for everyone's game, but it is a great frame. According to me and many others, Dunlop MAX 200G is the best racquet ever made. Injection moulding is a big reason for that and it is sad that is was abandoned.

Pro's are a whole different ball of wax when it comes to equipment. I understand professionals wanting to play with certain frames even if they are 25 years old becuase they make a living out of it. You can read about some pro's who stuck with wood until they felt forced to switch to graphite. I just don't understand recreational players ( anyone not a touring pro) searching the ends of the earth for an old frame. That is all. People act like you kicked their dog.

Azzurri
09-12-2008, 09:46 AM
It is not only few recreational players who like this racquet. I played on the tour and I absolutely love that racquet as do many of my friends. Granted, it is not suited for everyone's game, but it is a great frame. According to me and many others, Dunlop MAX 200G is the best racquet ever made. Injection moulding is a big reason for that and it is sad that is was abandoned.

how high were you ranked?:)

I went from a wood, to some aluminum Spaulding racquet to the 200g. I still recall how soft the racquet felt on solid shots (baseline and net). I tend to use it when I am just hitting with the ball machine or playing a meaningless set of tennis (especially doubles). My one gripe is I can't serve to well with it. I used to be a good server with this racquet, but for some reason I just can't control my serves.

I also remember hitting with friends racquets in high school and nothing felt like the 200g. In all I had somewhere between 9-11 and broke all of them except the last 2. I believe I missplaced them and never found them (moved a few times).:cry:

But the one I have now was probably made in the mid to late 80's (has the same graphics).

Azzurri
09-12-2008, 10:08 AM
Pro's are a whole different ball of wax when it comes to equipment. I understand professionals wanting to play with certain frames even if they are 25 years old becuase they make a living out of it. You can read about some pro's who stuck with wood until they felt forced to switch to graphite. I just don't understand recreational players ( anyone not a touring pro) searching the ends of the earth for an old frame. That is all. People act like you kicked their dog.

exaggarate much? I bought mine on fleabay. not the ends of the Earth. If anything, this was such a common racquet that there are plenty out there. But you do make a point, there are a very small amount of people that still play some obscure racquet from the 80's and have a hard time finding those obscure models. Those are the ones that search in vain. But this is not that racquet.

Lastly, you also don't know much about racquets. NO racquet is made for a pro. NO equioment is really made for a pro. If that were the case, no one would be able to use it. Its pretty absurd for people to think a 85 or 90 in head racquet is made for a pro and only a pro could enjoy it.

You just don't get it. You offer nothing to this thread except a misguided and clueless opinion. You also have a hard time getting things.

pianotennis
09-12-2008, 11:10 AM
i got 3 currently strung right now, with no mods except for an overgrip.

my old one, with the "thick" arrows weigh in at about 14.5 oz

my two other ones, with the johnny mac signature weight in at about 12.6 oz

do any of you on here notice that the older versions weigh heavier?

I have several versions of Max 200G, and yes, the first version with two green strips is obviously heavier than the other versions, although I never weighed how much they are. I prefer the version with one green, one gold strip and the upper part of the head is not black but kind of green blue.

Is there some reason reason why a tiny % of recreational players cannot move beyond a 25 year old frame?

Yes, there is, because you canít find any todayís racquets which have that magical feel of Max 200G, that feel makes playing tennis such a great joy. For me this reason is already enough, and Iím still using it in all my matches. Yes it has itís downsides, especially when you face power hittersÖbut I enjoy playing with it much more than playing with any modern racquets, and thatís enough for me to keep on using itÖafter all, Iím just a recreational player, I donít make a living by playing tennis.

max
09-12-2008, 11:26 AM
I have heard this "one version weighs more rumor" time and again, but I have both the versions and mine (at least) weigh the same.

The explanation for this, I've heard from TW boards, is that the racquet was given new cosmetics simply to compete with new models coming out: it had been around that long.

I agree that the Max 200 G calls upon you subtly to take on an attacking game, since the approach shots are so easy to make, the frame is so stable getting down low to the ball, the volleys so solid, etc., that the attack is only logical. Not so good swinging wide from the baseline.

retrowagen
09-12-2008, 12:41 PM
I concur that the Max 200g was introduced in 1982.

It should be borne in mind that when the Max 200g was introduced, it was available in L and M weights. Later (by the time the 1986 revised graphics came out), I believe only L weight was available.

I understood the "Pro" version (c. 1988-89?) were excerpted from regular production, and were within a tighter weight tolerance than the others. Otherwise, the same racket beneath the graphics.

The Max 300i was a different layup, though: it had Noryl GTX in the mix, where the Max 200g was graphite and nylon.

These were great all-round rackets, with a few quirks. I'd rather have a bag full of these than anything presently made by Dunlop, and my arm and shoulder would thank me too.

BreakPoint
09-12-2008, 01:27 PM
It's an old discontinued racquet, not a family member. It was once a great frame, now it's an out dated relic. Try the Aerogel 200. No need to get all personal.
Is a Stradivarius also once a great violin and now an "out-dated relic"? :-? :confused:

BreakPoint
09-12-2008, 01:32 PM
I just don't understand recreational players ( anyone not a touring pro) searching the ends of the earth for an old frame. That is all.
Why do violinists search the ends of the earth for a violin that was made over 300 years ago? Could it be that it's still better than anything made since? :-?

ilian
09-12-2008, 02:23 PM
how high were you ranked?:)

I went from a wood, to some aluminum Spaulding racquet to the 200g. I still recall how soft the racquet felt on solid shots (baseline and net). I tend to use it when I am just hitting with the ball machine or playing a meaningless set of tennis (especially doubles). My one gripe is I can't serve to well with it. I used to be a good server with this racquet, but for some reason I just can't control my serves.

I also remember hitting with friends racquets in high school and nothing felt like the 200g. In all I had somewhere between 9-11 and broke all of them except the last 2. I believe I missplaced them and never found them (moved a few times).:cry:

But the one I have now was probably made in the mid to late 80's (has the same graphics).

I never made it to the point where I made more money than I spent and I never had a sponsor to pay for my expenses. Having in mind that I come from a then communist country, doomed me to failure, because I was not able to play enough tournaments. Our tennis federation only covered the highest level junior tournaments, such as, European Championships and the likes. I was the top junior in my country and played on these tournaments where I got to play with some of the people who later became top notch players on the ATP tour. Some of these include Mariano Zabaleta (Argentina), Alberto Martin (Spain), Wessells (Holland), Brandt (Germany), Daniele Brachialli (Italy), Ion Moldovan (Romania), and many others. I also know one of the two brothers of Baghdatis (Marinos) who was my good friend and was very funny. Sometimes I miss those days, because I liked this type of life (playing tournaments and just living tennis)... I used to win junior tournaments where I defeated all of the top Serbian players as well as some of the best Romanian players at that time. On the tour I have played even more people that later became famous, one of which was doubles specialist from Serbia, Nenad Zimonic. Anyway, nowadays I am just an enthusiast, just like most of the people here.:)

Azzurri
09-12-2008, 07:24 PM
I have several versions of Max 200G, and yes, the first version with two green strips is obviously heavier than the other versions, although I never weighed how much they are. I prefer the version with one green, one gold strip and the upper part of the head is not black but kind of green blue.



Yes, there is, because you canít find any todayís racquets which have that magical feel of Max 200G, that feel makes playing tennis such a great joy. For me this reason is already enough, and Iím still using it in all my matches. Yes it has itís downsides, especially when you face power hittersÖbut I enjoy playing with it much more than playing with any modern racquets, and thatís enough for me to keep on using itÖafter all, Iím just a recreational player, I donít make a living by playing tennis.

^^excellent post.:)

Azzurri
09-12-2008, 07:26 PM
I concur that the Max 200g was introduced in 1982.

It should be borne in mind that when the Max 200g was introduced, it was available in L and M weights. Later (by the time the 1986 revised graphics came out), I believe only L weight was available.

I understood the "Pro" version (c. 1988-89?) were excerpted from regular production, and were within a tighter weight tolerance than the others. Otherwise, the same racket beneath the graphics.

The Max 300i was a different layup, though: it had Noryl GTX in the mix, where the Max 200g was graphite and nylon.

These were great all-round rackets, with a few quirks. I'd rather have a bag full of these than anything presently made by Dunlop, and my arm and shoulder would thank me too.

thanks for the info.. I had quite a few of the Pro's then.

Azzurri
09-12-2008, 07:27 PM
I never made it to the point where I made more money than I spent and I never had a sponsor to pay for my expenses. Having in mind that I come from a then communist country, doomed me to failure, because I was not able to play enough tournaments. Our tennis federation only covered the highest level junior tournaments, such as, European Championships and the likes. I was the top junior in my country and played on these tournaments where I got to play with some of the people who later became top notch players on the ATP tour. Some of these include Mariano Zabaleta (Argentina), Alberto Martin (Spain), Wessells (Holland), Brandt (Germany), Daniele Brachialli (Italy), Ion Moldovan (Romania), and many others. I also know one of the two brothers of Baghdatis (Marinos) who was my good friend and was very funny. Sometimes I miss those days, because I liked this type of life (playing tournaments and just living tennis)... I used to win junior tournaments where I defeated all of the top Serbian players as well as some of the best Romanian players at that time. Anyway, nowadays I am just an enthusiast, just like most of the people here.:)

Cool, thanks for sharing your experiences. Sounds like you had a nice junior career. I was never in your league, but like so many enjoyed (still do) the 200g.

MAX PLY
09-13-2008, 12:33 PM
Today, I did measure the weight and balance of a traditional Max 200G(black and green--actually a Golden Grand Slam Limited Edition model) and a Max 200G Pro (the last IM version--purplish/blue hue to it in the shaft area and graphic is a bright green). Both were 4 5/8 L and neither has ever been strung. They came out virtually identical. The Golden Grand Slam was 352 grams and the 200G Pro was 354 grams. I also measured another 200G Pro (previously strung) and it was also 352 grams. All were 9 pts. head light. I would conclude that the only meaningful difference is in the graphics. I also do not recall them playing any different when the Pros came out. In fact, the only physical change I remember with respect to this frame is that the buttcap on the first versions had less flaring out and were more straight--a more traditional buttcap came after a couple of years. All of the versions I currently own, save one, have the "flared" or traditional cap.

max
09-13-2008, 04:27 PM
Interesting. Thanks for the research. I'm surprised the balance matched.

pianotennis
09-13-2008, 07:59 PM
Today, I did measure the weight and balance of a traditional Max 200G(black and green--actually a Golden Grand Slam Limited Edition model) and a Max 200G Pro (the last IM version--purplish/blue hue to it in the shaft area and graphic is a bright green). Both were 4 5/8 L and neither has ever been strung. They came out virtually identical. The Golden Grand Slam was 352 grams and the 200G Pro was 354 grams. I also measured another 200G Pro (previously strung) and it was also 352 grams. All were 9 pts. head light. I would conclude that the only meaningful difference is in the graphics. I also do not recall them playing any different when the Pros came out. In fact, the only physical change I remember with respect to this frame is that the buttcap on the first versions had less flaring out and were more straight--a more traditional buttcap came after a couple of years. All of the versions I currently own, save one, have the "flared" or traditional cap.


As far as I know the first version(Max 200G on the throat) has two graphical models(or maybe more?): one is the earlier that has two green strips, the other has one green and one gold strip. The two green strips model is not only heavier than the other model, but the string holes are round rather than the square shape as you see in the following versions. I donít know whether they came from different molds, maybe someone on this board who knows more about this racquet can share more info. The one green one gold strips model of first version(Max 200G) weights the same like the second version(Max 200G Pro).

vsbabolat
09-13-2008, 08:25 PM
As far as I know the first version(Max 200G on the throat) has two graphical models(or maybe more?): one is the earlier that has two green strips, the other has one green and one gold strip. The two green strips model is not only heavier than the other model, but the string holes are round rather than the square shape as you see in the following versions. I donít know whether they came from different molds, maybe someone on this board who knows more about this racquet can share more info. The one green one gold strips model of first version(Max 200G) weights the same like the second version(Max 200G Pro).

I have two green stripes with square string holes. The two green stripes with the round string holes were early production.

pianotennis
09-13-2008, 09:26 PM
I have two green stripes with square string holes. The two green stripes with the round string holes were early production.

Thanks for input. I donít have two green strips with square string holes, does it weight the same like the one with round holes? To me my two green strips with round string holes weights and plays a bit closer to wood than all the other versions I have, the weights and the feeling when you just swing the racquet in the air makes you feel like swinging a light wood racquet.

Rorsach
10-07-2008, 11:32 PM
Sorry for digging this up again, but i'm still fascinated by this line of racquets.
The MAX200G's with the square holes also have 6 individual grommets, where as the round holed ones have only 4 (it's missing the 3 and 9 o'clock ones).

I know about the MAX150G, MAX200G, MAX300I, MAX400I, MAX500I and the MAX800I, but does anyone have some more info on the one pictured below? It's a Dunlop MAX100G, is it perhaps a Japan only frame?

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1852/rmax06kr7.th.jpg (http://img513.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rmax06kr7.jpg)http://img513.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1241/rmax07ua7.th.jpg (http://img513.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rmax07ua7.jpg)http://img513.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

ilian
10-08-2008, 07:12 AM
Sorry for digging this up again, but i'm still fascinated by this line of racquets.
The MAX200G's with the square holes also have 6 individual grommets, where as the round holed ones have only 4 (it's missing the 3 and 9 o'clock ones).

I know about the MAX150G, MAX200G, MAX300I, MAX400I, MAX500I and the MAX800I, but does anyone have some more info on the one pictured below? It's a Dunlop MAX100G, is it perhaps a Japan only frame?

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1852/rmax06kr7.th.jpg (http://img513.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rmax06kr7.jpg)http://img513.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1241/rmax07ua7.th.jpg (http://img513.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rmax07ua7.jpg)http://img513.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

I have never seen or heard of this racquet. That is very interesting. Why do you thing that it was for the Japanese market only?

Rorsach
10-08-2008, 09:23 AM
Why do you think that it was for the Japanese market only?

I've never heard of it, and the photo's of it are on the website of a Japanese collector (at least, i think it's Japanese. The site is just throwing weird characters up in Firefox).

Here it is: http://www50.tok2.com/home/sabe/tennis/titem50.htm

Jack & Coke
12-26-2008, 10:22 PM
http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/1782/200812202114483534na9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

These two favorites were the first racquets I ever purchased way back in 1987 (about $90 if I recall).

I'm a lefty with a wicked slice serve and, at the time, big wannabe Johnny Mac. haha!

The feel of this home defense weapon (aka a club) is so plush.

Over the years, the green and gold paint was flaking off sooo bad that I just said screw it and sanded it all off.

gymrat76
12-27-2008, 06:04 AM
http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/0/2/3/6/2/4/webimg/200408274_o.jpg
Have a brand-spanking new one that has never seen the court. Racquet and the case look like it just got out of the England factory.

DJG
12-27-2008, 08:09 AM
Nice. Used and new. *sigh* I need to go digging for mine.

Azzurri
12-27-2008, 09:30 AM
anyone have the strung specs?

gh65721
12-27-2008, 09:46 AM
Is this stick in 7/10 condition worth $20? I have a chance to pick one up.

Azzurri
12-27-2008, 09:48 AM
Is this stick in 7/10 condition worth $20? I have a chance to pick one up.

yes. get it. $20 is a steal.

gh65721
12-27-2008, 10:10 AM
Thanks Azzurri!

ilian
12-27-2008, 10:26 AM
http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/1782/200812202114483534na9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

These two favorites were the first racquets I ever purchased way back in 1987 (about $90 if I recall).

I'm a lefty with a wicked slice serve and, at the time, big wannabe Johnny Mac. haha!

The feel of this home defense weapon (aka a club) is so plush.

Over the years, the green and gold paint was flaking off sooo bad that I just said screw it and sanded it all off.

You have them in a Stealth mode... :)

Azzurri
12-27-2008, 11:43 AM
Thanks Azzurri!

let us know how it hits for you!:)

pianotennis
12-29-2008, 04:12 AM
anyone have the strung specs?

I have two of my Max 200Gs tested on a Babolat RDC the other day, one is a two green strips, the other is a green first version with one green and one gold strip. Both with original leather grips, one overgrip, dampener and babolat head tape.

Two strips:
weight: 393g
swingweight: 370
balance: 32cm

green first version:
weight: 377g
swingweight: 359
balance: 31.5cm

ilian
12-29-2008, 08:06 AM
I have two of my Max 200Gs tested on a Babolat RDC the other day, one is a two green strips, the other is a green first version with one green and one gold strip. Both with original leather grips, one overgrip, dampener and babolat head tape.

Two strips:
weight: 393g
swingweight: 370
balance: 32cm

green first version:
weight: 377g
swingweight: 359
balance: 31.5cm

What about flex?

pianotennis
12-29-2008, 08:18 AM
What about flex?

I forgot to test the flex, but as we both know, it should be very low.

I have my Max 300i strung two weeks ago, I think maybe I will try to bring my Max 300i with a Max 200G to make a comparison of their flex then make a report here.

ilian
12-29-2008, 09:40 AM
I forgot to test the flex, but as we both know, it should be very low.

I have my Max 300i strung two weeks ago, I think maybe I will try to bring my Max 300i with a Max 200G to make a comparison of their flex then make a report here.

That sounds good. I guess the difference in flex between the two will be about three-four points as the 300i should be a little bit stiffer.

psp2
12-29-2008, 10:34 AM
I have two of my Max 200Gs tested on a Babolat RDC the other day, one is a two green strips, the other is a green first version with one green and one gold strip. Both with original leather grips, one overgrip, dampener and babolat head tape.

Two strips:
weight: 393g
swingweight: 370
balance: 32cm

green first version:
weight: 377g
swingweight: 359
balance: 31.5cm

The Babolat head tape adds many SW points. To the folks who are looking at the above SW values and going "WTF", they should realize that more realistic SW values are should be at least 10pts. lower.

gymrat76
12-29-2008, 11:38 AM
The Babolat head tape adds many SW points. To the folks who are looking at the above SW values and going "WTF", they should realize that more realistic SW values are should be at least 10pts. lower.

does a head tape add 10 pts to swingweight? i have gamma h.t on my 200G and PS85. didnt notice any extra heaviness..unless bab ht is heavier than gamma...

psp2
12-29-2008, 12:01 PM
does a head tape add 10 pts to swingweight? i have gamma h.t on my 200G and PS85. didnt notice any extra heaviness..unless bab ht is heavier than gamma...

Depends..... how many layers? is it regular head tape or the Super Tape (this one's really heavy!!), how long is the tape cut?

As you can see, too many variables.

gymrat76
12-29-2008, 12:11 PM
Depends..... how many layers? is it regular head tape or the Super Tape (this one's really heavy!!), how long is the tape cut?

As you can see, too many variables.

True, didnt know there's a "super" version as in always..lol. mine is a regular, actually thicker (one that covers the grommets and top of the frame of my vincents) and half top of the head..dont feel any change to SW. perhaps there are few pts, but i dont feel that.

jorel
12-29-2008, 12:16 PM
i had a dream last night that i owned a pair and was playing with the max 200g and experienced no armpain

gymrat76
12-29-2008, 12:41 PM
i had a dream last night that i owned a pair and was playing with the max 200g and experienced no armpain

Lol..jorel, if it came to the point of seeing it in your dream, i think are really dealing with some serious arm pain. i do own max 200G's and true, feeling is unique. little "plasticky" imo. i annihilated my hitting partner last time around with it. moved him from one line to the other side line..and then smacked a flat shot right on him in mid center...wonderful racquet. another plus is, due to the conception in my mind that this racquet is like 83sq in, made me more aware and concentrate more on my shots.

Azzurri
12-29-2008, 02:47 PM
I have two of my Max 200Gs tested on a Babolat RDC the other day, one is a two green strips, the other is a green first version with one green and one gold strip. Both with original leather grips, one overgrip, dampener and babolat head tape.

Two strips:
weight: 393g
swingweight: 370
balance: 32cm

green first version:
weight: 377g
swingweight: 359
balance: 31.5cm

wow! And to think I used to play these (from 84-90/91). I still hit with it once in a while, but my god the SW! I have heard the green/gold striped ones were a bit lighter..gues so. Thanks!:)

pianotennis
12-29-2008, 05:39 PM
does a head tape add 10 pts to swingweight? i have gamma h.t on my 200G and PS85. didnt notice any extra heaviness..unless bab ht is heavier than gamma...

Yes, babolat head tape does add SW points, it's significant to tell the difference before and after you add the head tape. I always use head tape on Max 200G, not only to protect the head, but to add the swing weight to give a bit extra power to 200G. I will string a two strips this week, and I will bring it and Max 300i to be tested on RDC. This time I will test the swing weight before adding the babolat head tape.

Bud
12-29-2008, 09:49 PM
i had a dream last night that i owned a pair and was playing with the max 200g and experienced no armpain

I had the same dream and beat you 6-0, 6-0 :twisted:

jorel
12-30-2008, 04:52 AM
I had the same dream and beat you 6-0, 6-0 :twisted:
not if you used the head xrc like in my dreams

Deuce
12-30-2008, 10:23 PM
not if you used the head xrc like in my dreams
Please don't disrespect one of the finest racquets ever produced.

In over a quarter century of playing the game, I've never hit with a racquet that had a better feel upon impact than the XRC.

slice bh compliment
12-30-2008, 10:53 PM
Best racquet ever.
I played with it from 83 until about 94 (jrs, college and then some). I had up to a dozen at one pt, but they all give way eventually. I still have a cracked one with a famous player's autograph....and two in great shape that I still hit with....just to keep it real.

Frames that try to get close to it:
the 300i
the 400i
Volkl C10 Pro and things like it
the ag2hundred
the HEAD Microgel Prestige Pro with some lead in the handle
the Babolat PSL with some lead in the handle (this is what I use now, and I love it.....a nice update to the Max 200g).

But I still wish I had about a dozen new ones in a size 5 or 6.

Oh, and that Dunlop ad brought back some memories. Loved the A player ball and the stick, too. Even better: the Slazenger V-24, both of which I used before switching to the Max 200g.

I seriously think it would have been great for the game if frames had just stopped advancing right about there. I mean, I'm all for technology, especially in shoes and socks, poly shorts, etc, but I feel this sport could have been healthier without oversize, stiff and head-heavy. Sorry for the rant.

ilian
12-31-2008, 06:52 AM
Best racquet ever.
I played with it from 83 until about 94 (jrs, college and then some). I had up to a dozen at one pt, but they all give way eventually. I still have a cracked one with a famous player's autograph....and two in great shape that I still hit with....just to keep it real.

Frames that try to get close to it:
the 300i
the 400i
Volkl C10 Pro and things like it
the ag2hundred
the HEAD Microgel Prestige Pro with some lead in the handle
the Babolat PSL with some lead in the handle (this is what I use now, and I love it.....a nice update to the Max 200g).

But I still wish I had about a dozen new ones in a size 5 or 6.

Oh, and that Dunlop ad brought back some memories. Loved the A player ball and the stick, too. Even better: the Slazenger V-24, both of which I used before switching to the Max 200g.

I seriously think it would have been great for the game if frames had just stopped advancing right about there. I mean, I'm all for technology, especially in shoes and socks, poly shorts, etc, but I feel this sport could have been healthier without oversize, stiff and head-heavy. Sorry for the rant.

You are speaking the truth my friend!

max
12-31-2008, 09:14 AM
I seriously think it would have been great for the game if frames had just stopped advancing right about there. I mean, I'm all for technology, especially in shoes and socks, poly shorts, etc, but I feel this sport could have been healthier without oversize, stiff and head-heavy. Sorry for the rant.

Yes. I wonder whether the level of athleticism required for the game changed as well around that time.

jorel
01-08-2009, 01:11 PM
Please don't disrespect one of the finest racquets ever produced.

In over a quarter century of playing the game, I've never hit with a racquet that had a better feel upon impact than the XRC.
i love the XRC.....

I wish everyone playing today would either use an xrc or max 200g

it was an inside joke

cat6man
03-21-2009, 05:23 PM
Best racquet ever.
I played with it from 83 until about 94 (jrs, college and then some). I had up to a dozen at one pt, but they all give way eventually. I still have a cracked one with a famous player's autograph....and two in great shape that I still hit with....just to keep it real.

Frames that try to get close to it:
the 300i
the 400i
Volkl C10 Pro and things like it
the ag2hundred
the HEAD Microgel Prestige Pro with some lead in the handle
the Babolat PSL with some lead in the handle (this is what I use now, and I love it.....a nice update to the Max 200g).

But I still wish I had about a dozen new ones in a size 5 or 6.

Oh, and that Dunlop ad brought back some memories. Loved the A player ball and the stick, too. Even better: the Slazenger V-24, both of which I used before switching to the Max 200g.

I seriously think it would have been great for the game if frames had just stopped advancing right about there. I mean, I'm all for technology, especially in shoes and socks, poly shorts, etc, but I feel this sport could have been healthier without oversize, stiff and head-heavy. Sorry for the rant.

hi there.......a topic dear to my heart

i loved the original max200g and couldn't play with the later versions but that original one was pure joy..............as you suggested, the volkl c10 pro comes close but for me, only the c10 pro classic, as the subsequent c10's for me are as different from the c10 classic as the later 200g racquets were from the original injection molded 200g...........sigh

i am anxiously looking for something to replace my last c10 pro classic racquet now so maybe i'll try some of your other suggestions

i used to play the 200g and the c10 pro classic with gut at 55 and they are just unique in my experience

interesting tale: when my last original 200g had died in teh 1980s and i was looking around unsuccessfully for a suitable replacement, i happened to stop in a ski shop one winter and found a rack of old discounted tennis racquets in the back, 2 of which were original 200g's................that kept me going another 4 or 5 years at the time

slice bh compliment
03-22-2009, 05:32 AM
Wow, a pair of Max 200Gs! What a nice find at a ski shop! I once found a pristine Bancroft Borg at a thrift store once....while shopping for a 70s party outfit...which led to a pretty fun night involving rollerdisco, fondue and some cheap wine.
But yours is a much, much better find.

Oh, and if you are looking for other smooth frames to try, the Fischer Pro no. 1 98 is fairly flexible by today's standards. I mean, nothing's going to be as smooth as a Max 200, but, give that and the Prestige Pro a shot. Also, I hear the new Dunlop 4d aerogel 200 is coming in a 16x19 pattern maybe.

Bud
03-22-2009, 05:55 AM
Please don't disrespect one of the finest racquets ever produced.

In over a quarter century of playing the game, I've never hit with a racquet that had a better feel upon impact than the XRC.

Agreed!

Too bad they don't update the XRC. Would love to see a modern version using the same materials (100% fiberglass), same headshape, 93-95 sq. in. headsize... about 13 oz./6-7 points HL strung.

That would be one sweet racquet! :)