PDA

View Full Version : History of Dunlop 200s


jchl97
08-22-2011, 01:09 AM
Hi, recently switching over to the Dunlop Bio 200, I would like to know some history about this racket. Here's my current knowledge about different historical versions of the series:

Dunlop Maxply is probably what the 200 is originated from
Max 200G
Revelation 200G
Muscle Weave 200G
Hotmelt 200G
M-Fil 200
Aerogel 200
Aerogel 4D 200
Biomimetic 200

Please correct me if something's wrong, or add anything I have missed out, thanks!

vsbabolat
08-22-2011, 06:01 AM
The Max200G shares nothing with the Modern 200's that Dunlop has been putting to market. The only thing they share is they both have 200 in the name. The Max200G was a very unique racquet with it's IMF manufacturing process. Check out the Max200G in the classic section to learn more. The Dunlop Maxply Fort was a 65sq.in single shaft wood racquet that was made from the 1930's to 1983. It also has nothing to do with todays graphite racquets.

Winners or Errors
08-22-2011, 03:15 PM
The Max200G shares nothing with the Modern 200's that Dunlop has been putting to market. The only thing they share is they both have 200 in the name. The Max200G was a very unique racquet with it's IMF manufacturing process. Check out the Max200G in the classic section to learn more. The Dunlop Maxply Fort was a 65sq.in single shaft wood racquet that was made from the 1930's to 1983. It also has nothing to do with todays graphite racquets.

Beg to differ. The 200 series is targeted at the same players as the earlier Fort and 200G. Yes, the racquets are not the same, but what racquet today is anything like either of those, a wood racquet and one of the first graphite racquets on the market.

The OP correctly surmised that the 200 is Dunlop's main player's racquet line. The heritage, in that regard, is right on the money.

OP...
As for the 200 series, apparently all of them were meant to be low powered control sticks. The only one that missed the boat on that a bit was the one I picked up, the M-Fil 200, which is a bit more powerful than the rest of the standard 200 series, Tour model not included.

Rather than upgrading to the Bio 200, I elected to follow another path and chose the Aerogel 4D 100, a racquet that actually more closely resembles the Dunlop Max Impact Mid that I preferred to the 200G at the time I demoed both around 1989. It seems like a nice update of that frame and flexes similarly. I like it.

To each his own. I still have my 200s, and may at some point try the Bio 200, which sounds like a bit of a throwback to pre M-Fil racquets - a nice thing in my mind. I don't think you can go wrong with a 200 or 100 series Dunlop. If you like them, you will be able to find predictable new racquets forever. ;-)

Timbo's hopeless slice
08-22-2011, 04:25 PM
I have some old MW 200s and I play with the Bios, I think Winner or Errors is right, the stick have a similar 'feel' about them.

I love the things, but I did have a hit with M-Fil when that came out and it felt a bit stiff to me, wasn't keen. Sent me off on an ill fated adventure with HEAD, actually, but that's another story!

Automatix
08-23-2011, 02:37 AM
Beg to differ. The 200 series is targeted at the same players as the earlier Fort and 200G. Yes, the racquets are not the same, but what racquet today is anything like either of those, a wood racquet and one of the first graphite racquets on the market.

I disagree. For example the Maxply McEnroe (graphite one which was sold in M-Fil timeline) only shared the name and the graphics of the old Maxply. But going by your logic it would be its succesor. Well it is not. It was just a way to milk some from it's heritage and McEnroe's popularity. Although I really liked that frame.

Another example. Wilson Cobra from the 80s. There was the [K]obra and BLX Cobra but they have nothing to due with that 80s Cobra. But again with your reasoning they would be the successors of that frame.

The Max 200G is unique and has nothing in common with the later 200s.

You can put the 200s starting from the Revelation model in one bag. I agree.

Winners or Errors
08-23-2011, 07:00 PM
What other Dunlop series targets the same players targeted with the Fort and the 200G? The more recent Maxply McEnroe - not targeted at the same market, too stiff and powerful, a tweener IMHO. That was my reasoning, that the player targeted by the racquets was the same.

lgbalfa
02-05-2014, 08:21 PM
i know this is an old thread but the maxply mcenroe was not a part of the 200 series but a part of the 300 series. same mold at the hotmelt 300.

Automatix
02-05-2014, 10:45 PM
i know this is an old thread but the maxply mcenroe was not a part of the 200 series but a part of the 300 series. same mold at the hotmelt 300. No one said they were.

Big Tigger
02-06-2014, 09:17 AM
I've just bought two MW 200G (new batch) and couln't be happier with them.
Yes I grabbed them considering the specs alone and also the look.

Maybe I'm a bit off topic here but anyway the thing is I find them gorgeous.

BT

LeeD
02-06-2014, 09:28 AM
A different take on the idea....
My 2 Mfil 200's ARE stiffer than my Aero200, more like a modern racket! They are also about 1/3 oz lighter in overall weight, and maybe 10 points SW lighter. So Mfil is more modern, like Bio200's.
Mfil consists of at least 3 different rackets, possibly as many as 5. Which one did we get? Mine are 18x20, TOUR specification printed at the top of the head, the most availible one.
I know there are 16x19's, I know there are Euro only 16x19's, and I think some came 100 sq in in size, or 98 (not meaning the Bio200Plus).
All good, neutral rackets for anyone strong enough to swing mid 12 oz strung rackets. I might not be, aged 64.

Muppet
02-06-2014, 09:35 AM
I've just bought two MW 200G (new batch) and couln't be happier with them.
Yes I grabbed them considering the specs alone and also the look.

Maybe I'm a little out of topic here but anyway the thing is I find them gorgeous.

BT

I have one of the original issue. If you find that it's stringing up too tight, with a small sweet spot, when you try one-piece stringing, try either two-piece or an ATW one-piece method. I find it to play much friendlier either of those ways.