PDA

View Full Version : Dunlop MW 200g vs Wilson n-code 6.1


Dead Head
03-29-2006, 01:19 PM
I currently play with the MW 200g. And have been since "they" were new. Love the control. Very maneuverable at net. Love the weight. The racquet justs lacks that little extra pop. I've tried to string w/ less tension, alot of different strings,etc... All to no avail of getting a little extra power. I cant sacrifice all those things I mentioned just to get more power. This racquet being a very"dead"racquet helps w/being arm friendly imo. What I'm getting at is the ncode 6.1 a little more powerful? I'm thinking of the 16x18 pattern for a little more spin. The weight is almost the same. I find that most of the more powerful racquets are too light. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

basil J
03-29-2006, 02:10 PM
I was a longtime user of the MW as well and it was hands down, my favorite frame. The ncode 6.1 18 x20 frame will probably be more up your alley. It has a little more power than the 200G Mw, but is more spin friendly & extremely comfortable. I tried the ncode 6.1 16 x 18 and did not care for it. The 18 x 20version is a great serving racquet, nimble at the net ( for a 12 oz. frame) and the control and spin are great. I am actually starting to like this more than my old 200G MW's, which I thought would never happen. It plays great in stock form and is a very comfortable consistant frame.
Hope this helps..

jasonbourne
04-21-2006, 06:55 AM
basil J, the n6.1 18x20 is more than twice the price of the HM 200G and the HM supposedly has more power than the MW, would the HM be a potential alternative to the n6.1 18x20 for Dead Head transitioning from the MW for more pop? I would suspect the playing characteristics of the HM is closer to MW than the n6.1 18x20.

basil J
04-22-2006, 10:27 AM
200GHM is a good stick. It has a stiffer upper hoop and is more evenly balanced than the MW. It also lacks the absorber handle. The 200GHM is an excellent frame, and a decent successor to the 200GMW. It is a little stiffer and more powerful which at the tiem I was not looking for. I like the headlight balance of the Ncode 6.1 18 x 20 better. Ironically because of the added stiffness, I found the HM more demanding due to the added stiffness and a little bit of loss of spin, since the MW was more flexible and spin friendly IMO. For the price, it is the best deal for a players frame going and If I hadn't discovered my first ncode for $75.00, I would probably have gone back to it.

Eviscerator
04-22-2006, 11:20 AM
I tried the ncode 6.1 16 x 18 and did not care for it.

Since the racquets are so similiar, what was it about the 16x18 that you did not care for compared with the 18x20?

jasonbourne
04-22-2006, 12:55 PM
basil J, I enjoyed demoing the MW recently. My next time out I will demo the HM and Mfil. I am unfamiliar with the "absorber handle" in the MW that is missing in HM.
Can you explain what difference it makes to the MW over HM?

jackson vile
04-22-2006, 04:25 PM
I currently play with the MW 200g. And have been since "they" were new. Love the control. Very maneuverable at net. Love the weight. The racquet justs lacks that little extra pop. I've tried to string w/ less tension, alot of different strings,etc... All to no avail of getting a little extra power. I cant sacrifice all those things I mentioned just to get more power. This racquet being a very"dead"racquet helps w/being arm friendly imo. What I'm getting at is the ncode 6.1 a little more powerful? I'm thinking of the 16x18 pattern for a little more spin. The weight is almost the same. I find that most of the more powerful racquets are too light. Any thoughts would be appreciated.


Have you used gut, have you added lead to the tip? Also have your tryed the 90sqin version

basil J
04-24-2006, 05:03 AM
Ncode 16 x 18 was a little high powered for my taste and the sweet spot on the 18 x20 felt larger and easier to hit. When I tried the 16 x 18, I was using the HPs 6.1 and I did not feel t the time that it was an improvement. I have no problem generating spin with either frame, so that was not an issue. I also can slice and serve with much more pace, bite and accuracy with the 18 x 20 than with the 16 x 18.
The MW series had an absorber handle that claimed to dampen the frame much like the handle in the slax X-1 pro.I don't know the specifics, but I felt that the MW was a very solid dense feeling racquet, vs the HM felt a little hollow and tinny compared the MW.
If you like the HM but want a more open string pattern, The slaz x-1 is aframe you should look at. IMO it played like the HM with an open string pattern and a touch more head light. The frame felt very similar and both are at a bargain price right now.

basil J
04-24-2006, 05:08 AM
Hey jasonborne, where are you getting demo's of 200GMW's? is there a store near you that still acrries them new? If yes I would like to get my hands on a couple. Let me know please. I know others that would love to upgrade their frames as well..

rooski
04-24-2006, 05:10 AM
Ncode 16 x 18 was a little high powered for my taste
You must hit the ball harder than most top college players, seemingly half the satellite tour players, and a bunch of high ranked ATP players playing the 16x18 N6195. They seem to do fine with the power. Perhaps you never hit with a 16x18 N6195 strung correctly.

basil J
04-24-2006, 06:27 AM
Hey whoa, ouch!!!, I am not the only person who has commented on the high power of the ncode 6.1 16 x 18. read some other forums and it has come up often. I felt that at the time I was using the HPS 6.1, the ncode was more powerful and not enough of an improvement to change. Half of my buddies use the 16 x 18 with no problems. I prefer the the 18 x 20. No need for harsh comments.

rooski
04-24-2006, 07:32 AM
Hey whoa, ouch!!!, I am not the only person who has commented on the high power of the ncode 6.1 16 x 18. read some other forums and it has come up often. I felt that at the time I was using the HPS 6.1, the ncode was more powerful and not enough of an improvement to change. Half of my buddies use the 16 x 18 with no problems. I prefer the the 18 x 20. No need for harsh comments.
Sorry...Didn't mean them to be harsh...just thought you (and several others) may have voiced an opinion based on a poor string job (too loose).

There also seems to be many, many people on this board who like to give the impression that they are really good and hit the ball so hard that they say the N6195 16x18 is too powerful. I simply say...either they have the racket strung too loose...or they are not as good as the would like people to think. If people can't keep the ball in the court with the N6195 16x18 strung at 60+ lbs...I would say they have poor technique.

basil J
04-24-2006, 09:29 AM
I had a demo and it had crap string on it so I have no idea what the poundage was. if you are used to a very low powered frame (200GMW) some of the prostaff's may feel a little high powered. I know the 6.1 16 x 18 is an excellent frame and I am not that good, nor do I try to present myself as a high powered player, believe you me. (4.0). I just feel a more consistant and predictable feel with a denser string bed.

jasonbourne
04-24-2006, 09:31 AM
Hey jasonborne, where are you getting demo's of 200GMW's? is there a store near you that still acrries them new? If yes I would like to get my hands on a couple. Let me know please. I know others that would love to upgrade their frames as well.. basil J, I know someone who has many (3+) and she offered me to demo one of them in case I wanted to buy a used one. Also, I am not aware of a local store selling them new. I like the MW, one of the most comfortable and low powered racquets I tried. I played with the HM yesterday. Similar results in my game compared to the MW. However, firmer in feel. Due to the HM's firm feel I think am more accurate with my shots and control the ball better compared to the MW which feels more flexible. One area I find the firmness in a HM more benefitial is at net. The stiffer hoop should offer more accurate volleys, half volleys, and better-controlled stab volleys to a ball close to passing me and hits the top of the stringbed to dribble over the net. I would not expect the MW's more flexible frame to provide that kind of advantage. My primary racquet is the n6.1 18x20, before that is ps6.1, ps85 and max200g. Being familiar with Wilson over the years, would you agree the HM firmness is more similar to Wilson PS in feel and more benefitial in the hands of a s-v and all-court players, whereas the MW would be similar to the max200g or the Head Prestige line where comfort is higher (due to more flex or softer) and more preferrable to a baseliner?

basil J
04-24-2006, 09:49 AM
Yes. IMO The HM would be closer to a Wilson and the MW closer to the prestige. I found spin was much easier to produce with the MW than the HM, due to the softer flex. The HM does volley very well. Right now, I also use the ncode 6.1 18 x 20 and find it more comfortable than the HM due to it's headlight balance and slightly thicker beam. I find I can get more juice from the 6.1 on serves vs the HM as well. Both excellent frames, just a matter of preference. HM is certainly a bargain right now.......

jasonbourne
04-24-2006, 10:00 AM
basil J, thanks for comfirming my assessment. I completely agree that with the n6.1 you can produce more power compared to the HM and the comfort factor is higher.
Since I prefer a new MW over a used one, I may have to settle for the HM for it is the closest in performance to the MW currently available. I will need to add some weight around the throat to get it heavier. Hopefully, the power remains low.

rooski
04-24-2006, 11:15 AM
I had a demo and it had crap string on it so I have no idea what the poundage was. if you are used to a very low powered frame (200GMW) some of the prostaff's may feel a little high powered. I know the 6.1 16 x 18 is an excellent frame and I am not that good, nor do I try to present myself as a high powered player, believe you me. (4.0). I just feel a more consistant and predictable feel with a denser string bed.
I suspected you had hit with a low tension demo. If strung 60+ lbs, it makes a huge difference.

There is no doubt the 18x20 version has a very different feel than the 16x18. The tight 18x20 pattern effectively firms up the stringbed so up to a point it is not as tension sensitive (until you get it too tight and it then feels like a board). As you said, it's more about feel...and what you are comfortable with. You prefer the firmer feeling stringbed...my arm likes the more plush feeling stringbed of the 16x18 version.