PDA

View Full Version : Volkl O10 295 vs PB9?


Winners or Errors
07-28-2011, 07:27 AM
I haven't seen a lot of threads comparing the racquets, but they are the two that most interest me. I'm a 4.0-4.5 player currently playing with an unmodified Volkl Tour 9 V-Engine 18x20. I have the itch to pick up new sticks, and these two are the ones I keep gravitating toward.

Can someone offer a useful comparison? I've seen threads on both, but they don't seem to be mentioned together very often.

My game, for what it's worth.

Serve: when I'm playing intelligently, I hit both serves with lots of spin, the first with more placement, the second with more kick.
Return: depends on the serve, but I will often chip returns low to draw the server to the net; I like to hit passing shots. When I find myself on the defensive with that tactic, I get more aggressive if the serve is weak enough to take advantage of...
Forehand: learned to play watching Lendl, so I take a pretty long stroke and hit with a lot of topspin on that side.
Backhand: OHBH, tends to be pretty flat. I hit more winners with it than with the forehand when it's working.
Volleys: I only come to the net when drawn there or when I have the obvious advantage in singles, but find the weight of the current Volkl useful at the net for mobility and plenty stable.


Thanks for any help. No real reason for changing. Just hankering for something new... ;-)

dParis
07-28-2011, 11:07 AM
It's been a while since I have played with the PB9 so that experience is getting pretty small in my rear view mirror but I remember being at once impressed with it's capabilities and disappointed in the racquet. I found it impossible to play with it stock due to low swingweight and power. Though similar to the T9VE in SW, there is a noticeable difference in the way the PB9 feels during the swing. I never really felt the head of the racquet come through the swing and the resulting ball quality left me wanting more power and more feel for where my shot was going to go. Not to say the PB9 is poor in the control area, quite the contrary - it is one of the most precise racquet I've ever used, however, without a sense of where the head of the racquet is during the swing, I couldn't locate my shots consistently or with the precision I know the racquet is capable of. All of that changed quite a bit when I added 4g at 12:00 and 1g at 3:00 and 9:00 each. All of a sudden the PB9 had a hoop, there was very good power, the sweetspot opened up and stability, though already good, improved. No detriment to control or maneuverability, either. I would have liked to tweak the PB9 more and set it up with nat gut, reducing the cross tension 3-4lbs, but I had to return it before I had a chance. Seeing that the price has dropped, I was going to order one and make it over to my liking because I had realized the potential it had for me. That was until I tried the X10-295...

I feel the X10 and the PB9 are similar racquets. I did like the stock x295 much more than the stock PB9 so from the beginning, the X295 had the edge. Like the PB9 the Organix was easy to swing, stable, comfortable and insanely precise. I think the X10 is a little more stable and a little more responsive over a greater area of the stringbed. I do like the slightly modded balance of the PB9 over the slightly modded X295. The PB9 really feels like a scalpel where the X295 feels good but with a little more meat in the head to make up for the light static weight.

Bottom line, both racquets are great platforms for fine tuning. With just slight modifications both racquets are high performers - but the X295 is awesome right out of the bag.

PS - I don't think you'll miss the 18x20 pattern with either of the newer racquets. The control is definitely there.

Winners or Errors
07-28-2011, 11:38 AM
Thanks dParis. That's exactly the kind of information I wanted.

TennisMaverick
07-28-2011, 04:18 PM
I haven't seen a lot of threads comparing the racquets, but they are the two that most interest me. I'm a 4.0-4.5 player currently playing with an unmodified Volkl Tour 9 V-Engine 18x20. I have the itch to pick up new sticks, and these two are the ones I keep gravitating toward.

Can someone offer a useful comparison? I've seen threads on both, but they don't seem to be mentioned together very often.

My game, for what it's worth.

Serve: when I'm playing intelligently, I hit both serves with lots of spin, the first with more placement, the second with more kick.
Return: depends on the serve, but I will often chip returns low to draw the server to the net; I like to hit passing shots. When I find myself on the defensive with that tactic, I get more aggressive if the serve is weak enough to take advantage of...
Forehand: learned to play watching Lendl, so I take a pretty long stroke and hit with a lot of topspin on that side.
Backhand: OHBH, tends to be pretty flat. I hit more winners with it than with the forehand when it's working.
Volleys: I only come to the net when drawn there or when I have the obvious advantage in singles, but find the weight of the current Volkl useful at the net for mobility and plenty stable.


Thanks for any help. No real reason for changing. Just hankering for something new... ;-)

You haven't seen a comparison because there isn't any. Firstly, the DNX 9, is a 9. Secondly, the X10, is a totally new tennis racquet.

With that being said, your longer strokes which you self-described precludes you from using either frame. For your level and style of play, you should be looking at the London. If you can handle the step-up, then you should look at the Melbourne. Longer strokes require longer dwell time, since your racquet head speed is slower.

Pneumated1
07-28-2011, 06:39 PM
My game, for what it's worth.

Serve: when I'm playing intelligently, I hit both serves with lots of spin, the first with more placement, the second with more kick.
Return: depends on the serve, but I will often chip returns low to draw the server to the net; I like to hit passing shots. When I find myself on the defensive with that tactic, I get more aggressive if the serve is weak enough to take advantage of...
Forehand: learned to play watching Lendl, so I take a pretty long stroke and hit with a lot of topspin on that side.
Backhand: OHBH, tends to be pretty flat. I hit more winners with it than with the forehand when it's working.
Volleys: I only come to the net when drawn there or when I have the obvious advantage in singles, but find the weight of the current Volkl useful at the net for mobility and plenty stable.


Besides going what I would guess is a fraction flatter on first serves and coming to net more often than you, our games appear just short of identical, according to your summary and my interpretation.

I hit the London and find it a very good fit.

Winners or Errors
07-28-2011, 07:56 PM
Well, that's two for the London. I have been looking at it as well, though the TW review had me shying away because they described it as more powerful.

I play all of my tennis at above 6,000 feet of altitude, and power from the racquet is something I don't need. The ball flies. It's hard to describe to someone who hits at sea level if you've never experienced high altitude tennis. Sorry, I forgot to add that initially.

Does that change any recommendations? I did, by the way, see your comments TennisMaverick, regarding the London being similar to the 9 Series, so if it's like my T9VE but more flexible with more dwell time, that sounds like a nice direction BB has taken with the design. I guess I will just have to take the TW review with a little bigger grain of salt and do some demoing.

Please confirm.

TennisMaverick
07-29-2011, 12:58 AM
Well, that's two for the London. I have been looking at it as well, though the TW review had me shying away because they described it as more powerful.

I play all of my tennis at above 6,000 feet of altitude, and power from the racquet is something I don't need. The ball flies. It's hard to describe to someone who hits at sea level if you've never experienced high altitude tennis. Sorry, I forgot to add that initially.

Does that change any recommendations? I did, by the way, see your comments TennisMaverick, regarding the London being similar to the 9 Series, so if it's like my T9VE but more flexible with more dwell time, that sounds like a nice direction BB has taken with the design. I guess I will just have to take the TW review with a little bigger grain of salt and do some demoing.

Please confirm.
There were two versions of the T9VE. I only experienced the 18x20 version, which was a very solid stick. One of my players used it who was a very strong 5'6" 6.5 competitor. I still have a steath version somewhere. It's stiffness came from the double bridge, but was easy on the arm. It did not have a long dwell time, and needed a faster swing to use it well, which is expected of a 9. what makes the London different, is that it is string sensitive, so it can be strung to have a long dwell time, or the string bed can be tightened to shorten the dwell time. I've competed and trained at 6,000 feet, and use oxygen on change-overs. The need for topspin, and the right balls, is very important. The London will hold the ball on the frame long enough for you to apply spin--grind--and provide you with some control, without having to use excessive wrist and developing GE due to over-pronation to keep the ball in the court.

Winners or Errors
07-29-2011, 04:32 AM
There were two versions of the T9VE. I only experienced the 18x20 version, which was a very solid stick. One of my players used it who was a very strong 5'6" 6.5 competitor. I still have a steath version somewhere. It's stiffness came from the double bridge, but was easy on the arm. It did not have a long dwell time, and needed a faster swing to use it well, which is expected of a 9. what makes the London different, is that it is string sensitive, so it can be strung to have a long dwell time, or the string bed can be tightened to shorten the dwell time. I've competed and trained at 6,000 feet, and use oxygen on change-overs. The need for topspin, and the right balls, is very important. The London will hold the ball on the frame long enough for you to apply spin--grind--and provide you with some control, without having to use excessive wrist and developing GE due to over-pronation to keep the ball in the court.

I play the 18x20 version. Thanks for the information. It is quite helpful.

Pneumated1
07-29-2011, 04:58 AM
I play the 18x20 version. Thanks for the information. It is quite helpful.

An 18X20 London would be perfect for me, but I don't see Volkl/Becker creating one. Although, sometimes I have to remind myself that Volkl/BB open-patterned sticks are almost like a tight pattern in the sweetspot, if you notice. You probably owe it to yourself, if possible, to demo the London, X-295, and Melbourne together. I trust you'll find what you like in that bunch.

dParis
07-29-2011, 07:02 AM
Does that change any recommendations? I did, by the way, see your comments TennisMaverick, regarding the London being similar to the 9 Series, so if it's like my T9VE but more flexible with more dwell time, that sounds like a nice direction BB has taken with the design.
Other differences between the T9VE and the London are beam width and power. The London's beam is 20mm vs 22 on the T9VE and the 9 is more powerful than the London - due to the greater stiffness/beam and longer main strings on the T9VE, I believe.

So, while Volkl/Becker design may position the London and the current 9 series similarly, it's my opinion that the London is much less like the T9VE that you have and more like a lightweight version of the older 10 series Volkls.

I'm curious as to see what Volkl has in mind for the X9. The X10-295 plays so similarly to a 9 series that the new X9 will be filling a very small niche in the Volkl line up. I'm thinking somewhere in the 305-310g (unstrung) range and a little stiffer than the X295.