PDA

View Full Version : ** Dunlop 200G **: which is the most soft/comfortable version of the frame ??


cozmo5050
03-28-2006, 10:47 AM
i am interested in checking this racquet out. reading these forums people were saying the racquet was made with some impregnated expensive process which made them flexible?

please let me know which model 200g it is, head sizes they come in, weight of raquet etc.

kreative
03-28-2006, 11:25 AM
imo,

1) max 200g: buttery feel, best racquet i have ever hit with (when i can hit the sweetspot), 85" or less headsize, weighs about 13 oz, flexy

2) muscle weave (mw) 200g: soft feel, about 12 oz, 90", 95" or 100" headsize.

hm 200g, and mfil felt boardy to me.

louis netman
03-28-2006, 11:52 AM
MW and Rev...

TW Staff
03-28-2006, 01:46 PM
It was the Max 200G that featured an injection molded frame. The racquet was extremely comfortable, offered a buttery feel and plenty of flex.

There were other, lighter and more forgiving injection molded racquets such as the Max 300i, Max 400i, Max 500i and Max 800i.

From what I’ve heard, these racquets were expensive to produce and the tooling required to produce these frames is no longer around.

There are members here with far more Dunlop knowledge than I, and perhaps they will weigh in.


Chris, TW

BreakPoint
03-28-2006, 05:10 PM
In addtion to what Chris said about the tools no longer being around for the injection molding process, Dunlop also closed the only factory in the world (in England) that had these tools and made racquets using injection molding back in the early '90's. Not only were they very expensive to produce due to the process, thus causing profits to suffer, but Dunlop had a hard time making the racquet head much bigger without breaking using injection molding. And since demand for racquets with heads smaller than 85 sq.in. was waning, as everyone was going bigger, Dunlop decided it was better to stop producing the Max series and close down the factory as it was such a financial strain on the company.

Too bad, the Max200G was one of the best racquets of all time and I used it for a long, long time, (even long after they stopped making them).

rfprse
03-28-2006, 09:00 PM
Yes, Max 200G was the best. If you want to try it for fun, maybe you can still find it at an auction site or a garage sale.

jackson vile
03-29-2006, 09:56 AM
The Max 200g is on my to get list, but I feel that will be quite the beast.

The MW 200g is the best dunlop frame I have hit with best racket ever for 1hbh, and taking the ball early for sharpe angle return, and not to mention the serve return, very very solid

AndrewD
03-29-2006, 02:41 PM
jackson vile and anyone else considering the original style 200G,

First thing you have to do is ensure that the racquet is not warped. The original 200G series was absolutely notorious for warping and Id imagine a lot of the frames available on the auction site have had the strings in them for quite some time. Even when care was taken they could still warp quite quickly. Really just depended on the batch you got.

Second thing, if you intend to hit with the racquet, avoid the last version (the purple). Quite possibly something wrong with that run as the bloody things used to break without any provocation. I went through about 4 or 5 of them where the head just snapped off. Snappy looking frame but 'snappy' is probably the operative word LOL

dennis1188
03-29-2006, 04:05 PM
IMO the version dunlop max300i, same mold, headsize and mat'l w/injection process, grey colour. Excellent balance and flex. Solid construction for this model version. The weight is about 1/2 oz. lighter (than the max 200g) so more suitable for modification w/ wt. balance. Also, allows a faster swing. BTW there was a 400i version, i recall the headsize was approx 90sqin. cheers

BreakPoint
03-29-2006, 04:23 PM
Second thing, if you intend to hit with the racquet, avoid the last version (the purple). Quite possibly something wrong with that run as the bloody things used to break without any provocation. I went through about 4 or 5 of them where the head just snapped off. Snappy looking frame but 'snappy' is probably the operative word LOL

Andrew,
Do you know if that was with ALL the purple versions or just a single batch of them? I used a purple version for a while and it was fine and didn't break. I have to say that purple and neon green paintjob took a while to get used to after using the old black with green and gold pinstripe version for many years. I think the lower throat was also different on the purple version.

Ronaldo
03-29-2006, 07:38 PM
i am interested in checking this racquet out. reading these forums people were saying the racquet was made with some impregnated expensive process which made them flexible?

please let me know which model 200g it is, head sizes they come in, weight of raquet etc.
Revelation 200G with 95" head, 27" length has a wonderfully damped feel. Just happened to have one for sale

AndrewD
03-30-2006, 12:33 AM
Andrew,
Do you know if that was with ALL the purple versions or just a single batch of them? I used a purple version for a while and it was fine and didn't break. I have to say that purple and neon green paintjob took a while to get used to after using the old black with green and gold pinstripe version for many years. I think the lower throat was also different on the purple version.

The racquets that I broke were from 3 different batches. I was still a sponsored junior and of my initial two (all we got to start with) 1 broke within a week. When I got the rest of my frames (4 plus 1 replacement) 2 snapped and then another in the next delivery. At that stage, Dunlop took them all and replaced them with some older stock they had of the 87 version and the Golden Grand Slam model. Only got to keep one of the purple and it broke within 12 months.

That doesn't mean every racquet broke (even a bad run is going to turn out at least a few good batches) and it sounds like you got lucky with yours, as did a couple of my mates. Regardless, according to Dunlop, there was definately some problem with them: enough of a problem that I wouldn't buy one second hand unless it was just for display.

There wasn't any difference in the design of the purple 200G and the versions that preceded it: the throat wasn't any lower although the green certainly played firmer. That being said, the purple always felt, to me, thicker or boxier than previous versions. There wasn't really any difference and I'd put that down to the cosmetic change creating the illusion of it being different.

Personally, I preferred the feel of the purple to the green but it just wasn't built well enough. Most of the people I knew who used it, shifted over to the Prestige. I had my car accident so was out of the game, pretty much, from the end of the purple's run up until the end of 2004. When I came back, the 200G was an antique LOL

BreakPoint
03-30-2006, 12:55 AM
There wasn't any difference in the design of the purple 200G and the versions that preceded it: the throat wasn't any lower although the green certainly played firmer. That being said, the purple always felt, to me, thicker or boxier than previous versions. There wasn't really any difference and I'd put that down to the cosmetic change creating the illusion of it being different.


Thanks, Andrew!

I think what it was on the purple version was that the handle pallet was longer (maybe to accomodate two-handed backhands?) so it made the length below the open "V" seem shorter on the purple version than the older green version. I also felt that the purple version played stiffer than the green version (I guess contrary to what you felt), but that could be because my green version was much older and had many more years of use on it which may have caused it to fatigue and become softer.

AndrewD
03-30-2006, 01:33 AM
I trialled the green but passed on it and you're one of the few 200G users Ive heard of who liked it. Most I know, myself included, preferred the softer feel of the earlier versions and the 86/87 model was my absolute favourite: actually, all-time favourite of any racquet Ive used.

The grip on my frames (the purple) wasn't longer than usual and I didn't realise that's what they gave the general public. Mine came with a standard length grip and a calfskin leather instead of whatever was standard on the purple (was it a purple syth grip?). If the grip had been longer than standard I'd never have bothered with it (I was good enough to be fussy back then LOL).

BreakPoint
03-30-2006, 02:10 AM
Hmmm...I think we are getting our versions confused. When you referred to the "green" version before, I thought you were referring to the original version, i.e., black with green and gold pinstripes, since you said that the "green certainly played firmer" than the purple version. Are you really using the terms "purple" and "green" interchangably to describe the same version, i.e., the last version?

If so, no, I also did not like that one as much as the older version. I only said that it played stiffer than the older ones. I bought my first Max200G in early '87, so it could have been a late '86 or early '87 model. It was the one that said "Max200G Pro" on it, as opposed to the non-Pro version that the pro shop also sold. I agree with you in that I also preferred the softer feel of that '87 version.

BreakPoint
03-30-2006, 02:13 AM
Here's a pic that I found on the web. Notice that the purple version on the right has a longer handle than the older black version in the middle?

http://www.woodtennis.com/McEnroe/max200Gs_3a.JPG

BreakPoint
03-30-2006, 02:26 AM
double post

BreakPoint
03-30-2006, 02:26 AM
BTW, if you go to e-bay and type in item #7229739296, there's a guy selling a Max200G with a very strange grey w/red & white color scheme. I've never seen that version before. Any idea if it's real?

AndrewD
03-30-2006, 05:36 AM
When you referred to the "green" version before, I thought you were referring to the original version, i.e., black with green and gold pinstripes, since you said that the "green certainly played firmer" than the purple version. Are you really using the terms "purple" and "green" interchangably to describe the same version, i.e., the last version?


No, the 'green' was a very distinct version of the 200G and it is, in fact, the one listed in that e-bay auction you mentioned (it's green, not grey). I can't remember exactly what year it came out but, putting aside the special Grand Slam edition, it was the regulation edition prior to the purple. So, when it comes to colour, Im talking about the predominant colour scheme, not decals. Originally it was black, then it went to green, then to purple.

Not a bad racquet, but played stiffer than the earlier versions.

I saw that pic of the purple version on Wood tennis but, given the way Joe angles everthing, it's tough to get a good view. Regardless, a cool looking frame but not on par with the others (you could call it the 200G version of the LM Prestige LOL).

Check out auction numbers 7229539495 and 7229699747. The first is the 86/87 model and the second is the Grand Slam edition. If I was living in the States I'd be snapping them both up, especially the first one. Looks like it's in good condition and going cheap.

dibucainecat
03-30-2006, 08:50 AM
BTW, if you go to e-bay and type in item #7229739296, there's a guy selling a Max200G with a very strange grey w/red & white color scheme. I've never seen that version before. Any idea if it's real?

I have two of these, and I was told that they were "Australian cosmetics."

My first Max 200g in 1983 warped; the replacement cracked. Since then, I have stocked up on enough Max 200g's to last me twenty years, i.e. one per year. Fortunately, they are still going strong, so I have a surplus. If anyone wants to buy a used but solid Max 200g, I have several, including the purple version. Most are size 4 5/8 (too big for me now), but I also have 4 1/2 and 4 3/8. I also have the complete set if anyone is interested: Max 150g, Max 300i, Max 400i, Max 500i, and Max 800i.
minervam@mac.com

Simon Cowell
03-30-2006, 08:55 AM
I use the HM 200G,, I love it, a great control racquet at a great price, I like the 18x20 stringbed as well. Haven't tried the Mfil-200 or the others so can't comment.

jasonbourne
04-07-2006, 11:57 AM
I played with the Max 200G for the past two weeks for a cummulative of 15hrs. It feels comfortable and soft when I strike the ball. However, due to the "rubber club" feel I don't think it provides the precision and control one would experience from the 6.0 85, which is similar in headsize and weight. Most troublesome were the "low-to-the-ground" shots and serve. I felt a slight delay of swinging the ball up and over the net.

I think the 6.0 85 stiffer feel or stiffer construction is the difference.

I also suppose due to the 6.0s contruction it may preserve its performance longer after multiple string jobs than the Max 200G, which some folks in this thread mentioned of warping in the longterm.

jackson vile
04-07-2006, 03:09 PM
I played with the Max 200G for the past two weeks for a cummulative of 15hrs. It feels comfortable and soft when I strike the ball. However, due to the "rubber club" feel I don't think it provides the precision and control one would experience from the 6.0 85, which is similar in headsize and weight. Most troublesome were the "low-to-the-ground" shots and serve. I felt a slight delay of swinging the ball up and over the net.

I think the 6.0 85 stiffer feel or stiffer construction is the difference.

I also suppose due to the 6.0s contruction it may preserve its performance longer after multiple string jobs than the Max 200G, which some folks in this thread mentioned of warping in the longterm.

But the Max will give mega spin and a super heavy ball:)

jasonbourne
04-07-2006, 04:23 PM
But the Max will give mega spin and a super heavy ball:)

Which do you think delivers a heavier ball between the Max and 6.0?

Also did you find the 6.0 provide more stability and consistency from the baseline compared to the Max?

AndrewD
04-08-2006, 05:12 AM
Which do you think delivers a heavier ball between the Max and 6.0?
Also did you find the 6.0 provide more stability and consistency from the baseline compared to the Max?

I think it's tough to judge which delivers a 'heavier' ball due to the differences between the two racquets. I'd say the PS85 would provide a better combination of spin and weight although, if you predominantly hit flat then it's a much closer contest and I'd give the honours to the 200G.

As to stability (at least, the way most define stability) I'd give that, hands down to the 200G. I've played with a lot of racquets but am yet to find anything that comes close to it in that regard. Have a look through some old pics of Graf, Krishnan, Pozzi, McEnroe or any other player who used the 200G and see how many of them bothered with lead tape. Then see how many PS85 users did, even in its earliest days. The 200G, in stock form, provided such an incredibly solid and stable hit the only reason you'd add lead was for balance or a bit more power.

jasonbourne
04-08-2006, 03:25 PM
AndrewD, thanks for your comments.
Due to the "rubber club" and high-flex feel of the 200G, I would think it was less stable than the PS85. The 200G almost felt wet-noodle-like. Perhaps I need to understand how most define stability. Would you let me know?

Due to the stiffer feeling of the PS85 I would think it produced higher plow-through energy to the ball and more stability. Perhaps I need a little more education or refined understanding on racquet lingo.

AndrewD
04-08-2006, 06:44 PM
AndrewD, thanks for your comments.
Due to the "rubber club" and high-flex feel of the 200G, I would think it was less stable than the PS85. The 200G almost felt wet-noodle-like. Perhaps I need to understand how most define stability. Would you let me know?

Due to the stiffer feeling of the PS85 I would think it produced higher plow-through energy to the ball and more stability. Perhaps I need a little more education or refined understanding on racquet lingo.

I never felt that the 200G played close to its flex and certainly not with the 'noodley' type of feel you might get out of a racquet like the C-10. The flex was there but the injection molding made it feel incredibly solid and you don't feel the flex in the same way you do with other racquets. Certainly, nothing like a 'rubber club'. Just a unique, cushioned feel with good power and excellent control.

Stability is just how the racquet resists twisting on off-centre shots. That's probably your definition as well. I only mentioned it because a lot of people have the tendancy to dismiss a racquet as unstable because they struggle to hit the sweetspot. The 200G has a smaller headsize and sweetspot (not by much) than the PS85 so it's easier for them to confuse operator error with instability.

Get into a groove with the 200G and you wont find a more solid racquet. It isn't a topspinner's best friend because it's harder to whip the racquet head through quickly and the PS85 is much easier to manage in that regard. Block back a fast return of serve or step in and drive your shot: that's where you'll feel the control of the 200G.

I wouldn't say the PS85 has more 'plough through' than the 200G but the extra stiffness in the Wilson does equate to more power.

In my opinion (and we can only give opinions, no facts as far as playability goes), the 200G is considerably more stable than the PS85 on off-centre shots and infinitely more comfortable. The PS85, however, is more powerful (due to stiffness and slightly larger headsize) and is easier to generate topspin with.

jasonbourne
04-08-2006, 10:15 PM
AndrewD, thanks for eloquently explaining stability to me. I had the same definition in mind. I also appreciate comparing your experiences between the 200G and PS85.

In the recent past I did find the 200G solid as you described. However, my last time I played with it conditions were windy and I struggled more than ever to hit centre with regularity. Perhaps my strings (PSGD 17 @ 56) played a large role in the inconsistency as well. Between points it required a lot of alignment. All these issues on top of probably a bad day of tennis for me, made me believe it had lesser stability to the PS85.

You found the 200G with good power and excellent control. Whereas, you found the PS85 with slightly more power due to its stiffer contruction. Since the PS85 is stiffer and easier to spin the ball, did you find you had more control in placing the ball?

For example, did you find it easier to spin or place the ball for a wide-angle shot from inside your baseline to inside the cross-court service line of your opponent on either your fh or bh? Another example would be a drop shot from inside your baseline.

AndrewD
04-09-2006, 06:46 AM
jasonbourne,

First off I'd say that the 200G performs at its best when strung in the low 50's. I know McEnroe went below that but I always preferred something about 50-53 lbs with a fine gauge gut. That 3-6lbs makes quite a difference and you can still swing away without any great loss of control.

I think the smaller headsize helps to create the impression that it isn't as stable as the PS85 because it's easier to hit outside of centre. Id say it's also easier to form that impression when you're probably used to a larger headsize, even if it is only 85sq.

It can be hard to gauge compare stability off the ground as we do all hit the ball differently and use a variety of different grips. Perhaps the best way to gauge it is on the volley where, almost all of us, use the same grip and technique. See which one you find resists twisting the best on hard hit shots. I found the 200G better although it isn't as quick at net as the PS85

No, I didn't find more control with the PS85. In fact, I found less control than the 200G. That's only to be expected as, when you increase power, you decrease control. Another way to test control is to try the racquet at a low tension. The 200G will still give you excellent control right down to 40lbs (I know some pros used that or just a touch less with gut) but I don't think the PS85 does. You'll still have good control but not as pin-point as with the Dunlop.

Well, easier to spin and better placement are two different things. The PS85 was easier to spin but the 200G had better control so it was easier to place the ball. I could still generate good spin with the Dunlop (although I used to drive the ball with sufficient but not excessive spin) but the Wilson definately had the edge in that department. Drop-shots: no question, the 200G outperforms the PS85 on any touch or finesse shots. That really is its forte.

proracketeer
04-09-2006, 07:26 AM
Max 500i: Is this Racket comparable to the 300i and 400i? Specs? Beam width?

jasonbourne
04-11-2006, 09:44 PM
AndrewD, thanks again for your insights of the 200G. I sincerely appreciate your effort to share your experiences with it and how I can find more performance from the 200G.

I always strung the 200G at 55-56 lbs. An hour after newly strung, the strings required constant alignment between points that I imagined lowering the tension lower would perhaps decrease its consistent response for me.

I will string at 53 lbs next time. Do you recommend 16g string?

shakes1975
04-12-2006, 05:57 PM
Hi, this question is for AndrewD.
I've been using the PS 85 for quite sometime now. I've just recently got a dunlop max 200g (the black one with green lettering). I haven't got a chance to play with it yet. I need to string it. I have a roll of klip legend 16 gauge natural gut. I've a couple of questions, if you don't mind:

1. I mostly hit flat strokes with a little topspin. I have long, loopy swings. I have a pretty big serve. What can i expect as far as groundstrokes and serves are concerned ?

2. I've been reading posts on this forum for quite some time and found john cauthen's ideas intriguing. i want to try his recommendation of stringing the mains and crosses at different tensions. he suggested stringing the mains 6-14 lbs looser than the crosses. For eg., if the PS 85 has a recommended range of 50-60 lbs, he suggested string the mains at 46 lbs and crosses at 60 lbs; the net resultant tension would be around 56-57 lbs.
Can i try this on the max 200g ? i don't want to warp the frame by any chance.

ur inputs will help.
thx.

AndrewD
04-13-2006, 07:38 AM
jasonbourne,

With flexible racquets I've always enjoyed a thin gauge, especially when stringing at lower tensions. Of course, it does depend on the string you choose. Wilson Stamina 17 is a thinner gauge but I found it to be overly stiff and goes dead very quickly. Might be interesting to see what a 'power string' does in the 200G as they weren't available when I was using the racquet (I only used natural gut 17g)

shakes1975,

Bit hard to comment on that and you might be better off asking a pro stringer (Gaines on this board might be a good choice). I won't comment on that poster's suggestions but, if I were you, I'd be doing my testing with a cheaper string than natural gut.

As to how it plays: You might lose a bit of sting on your serve as well as some kick but that can't be helped when you lower the flex and the headsize. If your technique is sound then the difference really will be very slight. The feel will be quite different but the results wont be. On groundstrokes, you'll get a solid response and good power if you lean in to your shots. Control will be excellent, topspin wont be as heavy as the PS85 and slice but slice will be equally heavy (think Mac and Graf). The injection molding does produce a response unlike any other racquet and, once you've adjusted to the smaller headsize you'll know what I mean. The 200G seems to hold the ball on the strings far more than any other racquet Ive used, which is one reason it works best for those who dont hit with excessive topspin (hiitting through the ball as opposed to brushing up it.)

wlinchon
04-13-2006, 09:06 AM
The Max 200G was made in England, right? Would anyone know if the entire series was also made there? Or was production moved somewhere else? If they were moved somewhere else, has anyone noticed anything different?

wlinchon
04-13-2006, 09:09 AM
Also, I recall from another posting that the Max 200G PROs differed from the Max 200Gs because the PROs were within some specific guidelines (or something to that effect). Besides the Max 200G PRO, I once saw a Max 400i PRO. Were there PROs for the other racquets in the line as well? Would anyone know what the differences in the specs compared to the non PROs were, and how they affected play?

wlinchon
04-13-2006, 09:12 AM
Finally, whats with the labeling of the line? Why didnt they call the other racquets Max 300g, 400g, etc. Maybe its a silly question, but its been buggin me. Anyone could provide answers?

Thanks.

psp2
04-13-2006, 10:45 AM
i hit with the 200g pro (green/purple version) with babolat prohurricane 18g at 60lbs. i simply love the feel of the racquet and there's no lack of power either. i totally agree with the previous post about the "heavy" ball with the 200g.

my playing style is this: i hit with slight topspin on my fh and a driving onehanded bh.

marc

jasonbourne
04-13-2006, 11:27 AM
The Max 200G was made in England, right? Would anyone know if the entire series was also made there? Or was production moved somewhere else? If they were moved somewhere else, has anyone noticed anything different?

I have two different Max 200Gs, I suspect from first and second generation. Both are made in England.
From what I read on these boards, production of all Max 200Gs remained in England.

jasonbourne
04-13-2006, 11:33 AM
AndrewD, thanks again for your response.
I currently have 17g at 56lbs with PSGD. I don't like it because it went dead quickly, probably similar to your experience with the Wilson Stamina 17.
Prior to that I had a Klipper Zyex (multifilament) 16g at 55lbs. I enjoyed the playability with this tring on the Max 200G.
I will try 17g mutlifilaments next at low-50s tension, since it is typically a more powerful string (from my experience) compared to synguts.

AndrewD
04-13-2006, 11:39 AM
All of the 200G racquets were made in England from the first batch to the very last. Specs were pretty much identical for all of them - no pro edition (dont think any company did that back then).

There were other racquets derived from the 200G. I remember a 400i and another that could have been a 300i but not sure on that one. They were slimmer in profile to the 200G.

Basically, if you've seen a 200G you could never mistake it for anything else so ignore the label and look at the racquet. If it looks like every other 200G then thats what it is. There were no Asian knock-offs or any fake 200Gs because no-one else wanted to bother with the expense of injection molding.

slice bh compliment
04-13-2006, 11:53 AM
Max 500i: Is this Racket comparable to the 300i and 400i? Specs? Beam width?

Longtime Max 200G user...best frame ever.
If I may weigh in, the legendary stability that people talk about refers to the 200G's torsional stability of the frame. It is the only ultra-flexible frames that did not twist much at all.

After a lot of competitive tennis with lots of great (and varied) 200G's, I played with the 500i for a year or so. Nice touch. Not as stable. Tons of power. 95 head. A touch wider than 22 mm. Maybe 24 mm? Just a guess. Pretty heavy as I recall, sort of like a 200G. Beautiful blue paint with white and pink graphics. Not my cup of tea overall. I do not have any left.

Durability wise...yeah, I guess it was impossible to make those incredible injection molded frames in bigger headsizes. Over nine years, I cracked three out of like thirty 200G's from off center overheads or returns. Cracked three 500i's in just a year playing way less tennis.

jasonbourne
04-13-2006, 12:03 PM
Over nine years, I cracked three out of like thirty 200G's from off center overheads or returns.

Where did the crack form on the three?

slice bh compliment
04-13-2006, 12:48 PM
Where did the crack form on the three?

The oldest one gradually developed a hairline split in the shaft.
The other two cracked at 10 or 2 o'clock.
I have seen a guy crack one at 4 or 8 o'clock too.

All those years, I never broke one during the 1 year warranty period, even on a swipe or a throw (ashamed to admit I ever dispespected the Stradivarius of tennis equipment). When one cracked, it was on its last legs anyway.

shakes1975
04-13-2006, 02:39 PM
AndrewD, thanks a ton for your posts and insights on the 200g. I cannot wait to string it up and hit a few balls. the only area where i want to be more observative is on the serve, since i know well that no other mid-size racquet serves as well as the ps 85.

shakes1975
04-17-2006, 01:12 PM
Hi AndrewD, sorry to bother you again, i've another question i wanted to ask before but forgot. what is the weight of the stock max 200G (the black one) ? i thought i read somewhere that it weighed 355 gms.however, it felt significantly heavier than that.

i have a couple of stock ps 85's, and the stock ps 85 weighs 357 gms; the 200g appeared significantly heavier than the PS 85.

thanks in advance.

jasonbourne
04-17-2006, 01:48 PM
shakes1975,

I have the following info on the two racquets.

Dunlop The Original Max 200g
Head Size: 80 sq. in.
Length: 27 inches
Weight: 12.5 ounces / 353 g
Balance: 8pts (1 inch) Head-light
Swingweight: 337
Flex (RDC): 40
Beam Width: 22 mm
Composition: carbon (graphite) fibre in nylon reinforced plastic
String Pattern: 18x20

Wilson ProStaff 6.0 Original
Head Size: 85 sq. in.
Length: 27 inches
Strung Weight: 12.6oz / 357g
Balance: 8pts Head Light
Swingweight: 329
Stiffness: 66
Beam Width: 17 mm Straight Beam
Composition: 80% Graphite 20% Kevlar
Power Level: Low
Swing Speed: Fast
Grip Type: Wilson Leather
String Pattern: 16x18
String Tension: 50-60 pounds

wlinchon
04-17-2006, 01:55 PM
Previously I asked if the entire Max series were made in England. As some may know, Dunlop Japan has made some racquets that weren't available outside the Japanese/Asian market (and they still do). Actually I have a Max 100G, made in Taiwan for Dunlop Japan. But its not with the graphite injection molding. So if there was a definitive list of all Max racquets, would this qualify? And isnt the Max Competition part of the Max family?

slice bh compliment
04-17-2006, 02:17 PM
...So if there was a definitive list of all Max racquets, would this qualify? And isnt the Max Competition part of the Max family?

Max family...now that is a relative term. Pun intended.
Apart from the Max 200g, there was the Black Max and long before either, there was a standard headed, open-throated composite racquet called the Max Power. Late seventies. Real thin beam, like a HEAD XRC, only with great feel. I wish I still had one.

ANyway...wlinchon, interesting you had a 100G from Japan. What years?

Much more recently, I read there was a non-North America frame called the 100g (like braided / MW or HotMelt kind of thing). Wonder if any of you play with that?

proracketeer
11-01-2006, 03:22 AM
And isnt the Max Competition part of the Max family?

Has anyone more Infos on the Max Competition?!?

Pushmaster
11-01-2006, 03:34 PM
The MW 200g is the best dunlop frame I have hit with best racket ever for 1hbh, and taking the ball early for sharpe angle return, and not to mention the serve return, very very solid
I'm with you on this one JV. In addition to the attributes that you mentioned, the MW 200G 95 is the by far best serving stick I've ever played. My Grandmother could hit bombs with it! Also, you can FEEL the ball luxuriously sink into the stringbed for what seems like an eternity, thus giving the user pinpoint control. I sold my 3 MW's a couple years ago like an idiot when I decided to switch over to the PS 6.0 95 because I wanted something a little more spin friendly, BIG mistake!! Sure, I gained a little more spin with the PS 6.0 95 because of it's more open string pattern, but it pales in every other way to the MW 200G. I mean it's TOO sweet! Of the current sticks out there, is there anything even CLOSE to the MW?

BreakPoint
11-01-2006, 04:05 PM
Of the current sticks out there, is there anything even CLOSE to the MW?

I'm almost afraid to say it at the risk of starting another frenzy, since it's already gotten a lot of press here recently, but may I suggest the Redondo? :D

Pushmaster
11-01-2006, 04:15 PM
I'm almost afraid to say it at the risk of starting another frenzy, since it's already gotten a lot of press here recently, but may I suggest the Redondo? :D
BP, thx. Yes, on paper they seem similar. I'm going to demo both the MP and the Mid. Too bad I can't find 2 or 3 of the real thing (MW 200G) in a 5/8.

BreakPoint
11-01-2006, 04:20 PM
I sold my 3 MW's a couple years ago like an idiot when I decided to switch over to the PS 6.0 95 because I wanted something a little more spin friendly, BIG mistake!!

BTW, I also switched from the MW200G to the PS 6.0 95 a few years ago, and sold off my two MW200G's. However, unlike you, I never regretted it as I immediately played better when I switched from the MW200G to the PS 6.0 95. I think I just like the feel of more open string patterns much more.

Pushmaster
11-01-2006, 04:27 PM
Interesting, and I know what your saying. If only the MW 200G 95 had come in a 16X18 string pattern. That would have been beautiful.