PDA

View Full Version : How does the 200G compare to the PS95 and PSTour95? (BreakPoint especially welcome)


GregOz
07-03-2005, 11:18 PM
I'd like to get some feedback on the pros and cons of these 3 racquets (did also have the PS85 in mind but that can wait for another question), the Wilson ProStaff 6.0 95, Dunlop HM 200G and Wilson PS Tour 95.

I know they're all quite different but Im running out of sensible alternatives to my old Head Prestige frames so trying to think a bit laterally. I dont want to go any bigger than a 95sq frame as Ive found it plays havok with my backhand but want just a slightly larger margin for error and if there's a slight boost in power that would be fine as well.

Ive read the reviews on the different frames and searched for opinions on each one individually so I know that the PS95 has the most fans. But, a comparison of them side to side would round things off for me. None are super expensive but it makes sense to me to get some opinions before buying.

BreakPoint, I know you're devoted to your PS95s so your input would be greatly appreciated. Anyone else that can offer some objective info please feel free to respond.

Also, does anyone know the exact specs of the PS95? I've got what TennisWarehouse lists but have also just read specifications from the USRSA that puts it at 349grams in total weight, 71 for stiffness and 310 for swingweight which is totally different to the TW specs.

Thanks very much.

GregOz
07-04-2005, 06:10 AM
double post

Gaines Hillix
07-04-2005, 06:17 AM
I've played with the 200SG and the PS6.0 95. The 200G is too soft and low powered for me. I thought it felt "dead." The PS 6.0 95 has that nice crisp ProStaff feel, yet is not stiff or boardy feeling. It has a very headlight balance, so it's a good s/v stick and is great for generating spin on serves and groundies. TW lists the stiffness for the PS at 67 and I believe that's what it really is having played with one quite a bit.

fist pump
07-04-2005, 06:27 AM
even at the lowest stringing level - the dunlop 's power is so low .
I feel the transition of power from sweet spot to out of the sweet t is also big .
it is sweet if you are finding the sweetspot regularly.
You need a lot of time to demo this one - a lot of time to get used to it.


The PS 6.0 96 is an excellent frame - it does everything well IMO.

GregOz
07-04-2005, 06:34 AM
Gaines,

when you say the 200G is 'soft' what do you mean exactly? Is that referring to a flexible feel or just that you didn't feel there was any 'life' in the racquet?

I would be transitioning from a solid but flexible racquet (PC600) so if it was only that you found it too flexy then I might not be so bothered.

That is my biggest worry with the PS95. Some call it flexible but the rating and your estimation is that it is a genuine 67 for stiffness. That is quite a lot higher than my Prestige which I think must be around the 60 mark.

As someone who has been around the traps for a while Im assuming you've at some stage hit with the Prestige mid. Do you think it's too much of a stretch to go from it to the PS95? I know Ive found the PS85 a bit too harsh in comparison to the Prestige but would the PS95 be the same?

sedwickdotcom
07-04-2005, 02:43 PM
REAL easy to put spin on the ball w/ tour 95 bc it's light and head light. The dunlop does have a very uniquely soft feel. the feel of the tour 95 REALLY changes as you change string tension - you can make it feel very soringy or like a board

BreakPoint
07-04-2005, 04:32 PM
Greg,
Although I think TW's specs on the PS 6.0 95 are accurate, it plays much flexier than its specs would indicate. This is because it has a very flexible hoop and a stiff throat, which might make the overall stiffness rating high, but in actual play it feels softer than that.

I didn't like the HM 200G all that much mostly due to the dense string pattern. It just didn't have that crisp feel and also robbed it of some power. I also found the balance to be a bit strange. Contrary to what some have already said, I actually found it to feel stiffer than the PS 6.0 95, but the dense string pattern may have something to do with that. I also found it to feel a bit tinny or hollow compared to the PS 6.0 95, which has a more solid, dead feel to it.

The Tour 95 does have a bit of the ProStaff feel but no where near the sweet feel of the PS 6.0 95. I also found the Tour 95 to be too stiff and light for my liking. I couldn't serve nor volley as well with it. Once in a while I could hit a great running forehand with it but that was about it. I put a lot of importance in how a racquet feels, and for me, the PS 6.0 95 felt better.

BTW, I used a Prestige Classic for a little while a few years ago. I would say the PS 6.0 95 is more forgiving, but still in the general, low powered, player's stick category. Both serve very well, but I found the PS 6.0 95 to be easier to hit groundstrokes from the baseline with, especially generating topspin.

Hope that helps.

basil J
07-07-2005, 10:58 AM
I have to agree with Breakpoint. The 200G HM is although almost 12 oz. it is much more hollow feeling than the prostaff or for that matter the 200GMW of Mfil. Both have fairly small sweet spots, I found that the wilson was much easier to generate spin with, but I also found that I would spray balls more with the 6.0 than with the 200G, which also has a small sweet spot, but I don't think the balls spray as much off of a 18x20 string bed vs a 16 x 18.

AndrewD
07-15-2005, 02:05 AM
Greg,

I finally got to hit with the 200G (the HM version) and was very impressed. The balance felt absolutely spot-on and not as far removed from the old Prestige Pro I was using. Obviously not as soft in feel as that racquet but then there isn't anything else around with the same feel. Regardless, it felt very, very nice to hit with. Not heavy at all and swings quite light (has a lower swingweight than the Prestige) but with a similar, dampened response to the Prestige Pro. Quite a bit more power and greater topspin potential despite the same 18x20 string pattern, no doubt due to the larger head size.

I can't say I was really timing my volleys too well with it (hitting a bit too high on the string bed) but when I did there was more than sufficient power for a put-away shot but with very good control. Off the sweetspot the feel is crisper than the Prestige Pro but you could probably get a bit closer with the right kind of string. Actually, I think it is a very string sensitive racquet but also got the feeling that it is one you could string quite low (under 50lbs) and still retain control.

Good power on the serve, especially the flat one, but less slice than is ideal. Kick serves had good work on them but I don't know if that would balance out the drop away in swing.

Groundstrokes were very good with some real weight behind them. It's the sort of racquet that rewards good weight transference and a nice, fluid swing. Slice backhands were definately a surprise as results far exceeded the feel of hitting them. I didn't think I was getting a lot of work on the shot but they were coming off the court with a lot of penetration. I think that's standard with the racquet. It delivers a lot more weight to your shots than you think.

I think you'd actually quite like it but basil J seems to be the go-to man for all things 200G so I'd throw in a question or two for him, if I were you.

dozu
07-15-2005, 05:55 AM
Breakpoint is right on the money. the PS6.0 95 plays much more flexible than it's spec and it has a very solid feel around the net and from the baseline.

the HM200g plays stiffer than the PS, although it's spec has a lower stiffness. if you wonna go with a Dunlop, try the MW200g, imo a better verson than the HM.

the 2 frames has quite a bit weight difference. the PS is around 12.7 strung, the 200g is around 12 strung, so u gotta pick one closer to your Head.

the 200g has more power than the PS.. I have a MW200g and I cannot customize it to my usual 13 oz while still keep the ball in the court. the PS6.0 is really low powered and plays well if you like to use the weight of the racket to drive the ball, instead of brushing it all the time.

basil J
07-15-2005, 07:29 AM
Thanks for the kind reference Andrew D. The thing that keeps me coming back to the 200GMW is that my opponents tell me I hit a very HEAVY ball with this racquet that I can't seem to duplicate with anything else I have ever used. the swing weight and feel are also fantastic. No need for lead tape. You can use the weight of the stick to plow through every shot. I use 17 gauge strings and I string the racquet tight(64-66") and It doesn't feel like I am hitting heavy shots, But they come down into the court beautifully. I demoed an O3 tour yesterday. Great spin, feel, my hitting partner told me that the balls were coming in were light as a feather. Oh well, back to my 200G. I just found a couple of new ones a store had in the back room, so I am set for a while.

elbuzzard_lives
07-15-2005, 10:04 AM
basil J, nice score! i have 3 of them but they are all beat up...i just changed headguards but i wish i had some fresh frames to use. they are kind of expensive on **** now. :shock: :shock: :shock:

GregOz
07-15-2005, 11:38 PM
Andrew,I read your post but thought Id hold off responding until I got back from the courts. Took the 200G out for a spin and I was really surprised by the performance. Had two, one strung at 50lbs and one strung at 55lbs, both with a basic Klip synth gut. 50lbs was too low for me and I think you're about the only one I know who can handle a racquet strung at those funky kind of tensions without having to change you swing. Buggered if I know how you do it but the 55lbs worked best for me. I found it really smooth but with a crisper response than my Prestige and definately felt a bit stiffer. Not stiff to the point where it was uncomfortable though and I think that extra firmess is a blessing on the R.A. Volleyed like a dream, just put the racquet out and I had a solid shot. Serves were pretty darn good too. Got good topspin but not a lot of slice. I think the extra pace negates that because I was able to place the serve pretty much wherever I wanted. Approach shots like you said were very heavy and so were groundstrokes. Like the Prestige I felt like I could just hit flat and not have to worry about them going long or having to add a mass of topspin to keep them in the court. Swings very nicely and a little bit lighter than the Prestige which would be nice for doubles. Blocking back a first serve was easy as pie and I got a very solid, predictable shot. Really let me stand in a bit on the return because I knew the racquet would be easy to get around but also give me a solid shot. Also loved the fact that the grip shape isn't too far removed from the Head one (a little less extreme but not a major jump) and the head shape was almost identical. Played 6 sets -3 singles and 3 doubles- and no arm or shoulder problems at all, not even a twinge.

Thanks very much for everyone's help. The 200G wont replace the Prestige, nothing will do that, but this is as good an alternative as Ive been able to find. I'll be on to Dunlop on Monday and am going to grab 3 of them.

basil J
07-16-2005, 01:30 PM
AHH, another convert. Dunlop 200G should get more respect...

brian.sat
07-16-2005, 02:34 PM
If you have a sored elbow like me, you could forget any PS. Strangely, neither Volkl will do. 200G and Prestige can let me play 7 times a week, while a PS tour, which plays great, got my elbow complained in 15 minutes.

AndrewD
07-16-2005, 11:12 PM
AHH, another convert. Dunlop 200G should get more respect...

basil J,

Might have another convert after my hit tomorrow. Will see how that goes but think it might well do the trick. Adding on shipping it still comes out to $150 which isn't dirt cheap (I am a student these days) but a saving of almost $100 compared to other options (racquets in Oz are more expensive, even when we buy from the states -shipping is a killer).

As to Dunlop getting more respect: Im just back from the Queensland Open tennis tournament (players from all over Australia at the open level -satellite, challenger and top juniors) and I came away quite surprised at the presence Dunlop had. Wilson was the overwhelming favourite and the nSix-One95 was the most popular racquet (only one nCode Tour 90 and one PS Tour90) but the next most popular was Dunlop and then Babolat (bit of a surprise). However, the Babolats were only seen in the junior ranks (PD standard only). Of the Dunlops it was a tie between the 200G and the 300G (still can't understand how anyone can use the 300G but there you go) with a couple of juniors using the M-Fil 200.

So, it looked to me as though 95sq was the preferred head size and for players choosing that type of frame it was either the nSix-One, the 200G or the M-Fil 200.

basil J
07-17-2005, 11:45 AM
Did you check out E-bay? I have been seeing pairs of HM200G's going for $125.00 a pair!

martin
08-04-2005, 10:44 AM
I've heard that stiffness is measured in the upper hoop of a tennis racket so just wondering why the pro staff 95 6.0 has that flexy feeling if this isn't measured in the throat of the racket. The upper hoop of the pro staff certainly isn't flexible(ra 67)

BreakPoint
08-04-2005, 11:13 AM
I've heard that stiffness is measured in the upper hoop of a tennis racket so just wondering why the pro staff 95 6.0 has that flexy feeling if this isn't measured in the throat of the racket. The upper hoop of the pro staff certainly isn't flexible(ra 67)

Not true. The measurement is taken at the throat but it's supposed to be an average of the entire frame (although I'm a bit skeptical about that). The PS 6.0 95 is stiff at the throat but flexible at the hoop, and feels quite flexible overall. I've found some racquets rated at 60 to feel even stiffer than the PS 6.0 95.

martin
08-04-2005, 11:34 AM
This is where i read it Breakpoint.
According to TW Staff they measure the stiffness in the upper hoop.



07-03-2004, 04:56 PM #1
ClemsonTennis9
Rookie


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: TN
Posts: 162
flexibility rating

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i really dont understand the flexibility rating, on some racquets they feel very flexible, but they are given a high rating, what is up with this?

ClemsonTennis9
View Public Profile
Send email to ClemsonTennis9
Find More Posts by ClemsonTennis9
Add ClemsonTennis9 to Your Buddy List

07-04-2004, 06:46 PM #2
TW Staff
Super Moderator


Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,387

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The stiffness rating is calculated be measuring upper hoop stiffness. As it does not take into account shaft and throat stiffness, a racquet with a stiff upper hoop may have a high rating even if it has a flexible shaft. We have been looking into ways of measuring zonal stiffness, but right now the industry standard is for measurements of upper hoop stiffness (as measured on a Babolat RDC machine).
A low stringbed stiffness created by an open string pattern or big grommet system etc. can also make a stiff racquet feel softer.

Chris, TW.

TW Staff
View Public Profile
Visit TW Staff's homepage!
Find More Posts by TW Staff
Add TW Staff to Your Buddy List

07-05-2004, 02:11 AM #3
ClemsonTennis9
Rookie


Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: TN
Posts: 162


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

thanks

ClemsonTennis9
View Public Profile
Send email to ClemsonTennis9
Find More Posts by ClemsonTennis9
Add ClemsonTennis9 to Your Buddy List



Talk Tennis > Miscellaneous > TW Questions/Comments
flexibility rating

BreakPoint
08-04-2005, 11:40 AM
It would appear that TW has it backwards.

martin
08-04-2005, 12:17 PM
Do you really think so??

martin
08-04-2005, 12:44 PM
You're right Breakpoint. I found this:

Babolat Racquet Diagnostic Center (RDC)


At Tennis Warehouse, we use the Babolat Racquet Diagnostic Center (RDC) to measure racquet specifications. The RDC is the most sophisticated multi-task diagnostic equipment commercially available. These specifications (on strung racquets) and the resultant rating of maneuverability are included in our racquet descriptions and reviews.

Here's a brief explanation of each:


Weight: racquet is measured strung. Weight offered in grams and ounces.
Stiffness: frame stiffness measured at or about the throat area. This is generally recognized as the main flex point of a frame during ball contact. The higher the number, the stiffer the frame. The stiffer the frame, the more power it provides, all other things being equal. This is a relative number but generally, less than 55 is flexible, 55-60 is medium flexible, 60-65 is medium stiff, 65-70 is stiff and 70+ is very stiff.

BreakPoint
08-04-2005, 01:09 PM
You're right Breakpoint. I found this:

Babolat Racquet Diagnostic Center (RDC)


At Tennis Warehouse, we use the Babolat Racquet Diagnostic Center (RDC) to measure racquet specifications. The RDC is the most sophisticated multi-task diagnostic equipment commercially available. These specifications (on strung racquets) and the resultant rating of maneuverability are included in our racquet descriptions and reviews.

Here's a brief explanation of each:


Weight: racquet is measured strung. Weight offered in grams and ounces.
Stiffness: frame stiffness measured at or about the throat area. This is generally recognized as the main flex point of a frame during ball contact. The higher the number, the stiffer the frame. The stiffer the frame, the more power it provides, all other things being equal. This is a relative number but generally, less than 55 is flexible, 55-60 is medium flexible, 60-65 is medium stiff, 65-70 is stiff and 70+ is very stiff.

Hey, I'm always right! ;) Just kidding! LOL. Good find, martin!!! :D