Discussion in 'Racquets' started by Doc Hollidae, May 11, 2012.
Has anyone had the chance to try both of these rackets? Please compare and contrast if so...
I second this query.
^ +1 very interested in a side by side comparison of these racquets.
I have the bio max 200g and I have held the pro one in hand. The pro one is really a 95 square inch head, the bio has longer mains and is a true 98.
I've been using the Pro One for about a month now, and I hit the Dunlop a few days ago, but I borrowed it for the weekend and will be able to post more information on Monday. The Dunlop felt a bit stiffer to me but nothing that would bother my arm, and despite the higher sw of the Pro One, I felt it moved through the air a little easier than the Dunlop. Really, I think they are somewhat similar frames.
I have the pro one and just demoed the max200g. Although I don't think the pro one moves through the air faster I do think it has much more comfort and plow. It just has a different feel to it. I also had better results returning against hard serves. I do find it hard to yield into the third set of a tight match but that's likely cos I'm a 4.0
I have both and have spent a couple of hours with them. Both are very solid frames with many similarities. The biggest difference IMO is that the Pro One has more power/plow, hits a very punishing ball, while retaining enough control and is better suited for power players blasting their opponents away from baseline. The Max, while giving you plenty confidence in baseline rally, has more finesse and precision, is more versatile and better for touch/feel players. Both have very good spin. The Max has a very good ball feel, and is more raw/unfiltered than the Pro One. And the Max head size plays slightly bigger than the Pro One.
To me, Pro One is real winner between two.
Any particular reason why you think this? I've been using the Pro 1 for a while now but the new Max 200g is tempting me.
I agree the Pro one is overall better but I feel the max 200 is much better at net as well as a double stick. It has better feel and touch at net. However the Pro one is beast from the baseline
Bump. Any other comments? Mostly curious regarding power and stability between the two.
Pro One has the edge in these two areas. A decision between the two IMO mostly comes down to your swing and play style. For now I'm keeping both, although switching between the two does take a bit adjustment.
I have been trying both of these and it's incredible how similar they are. Both of mine are around 330 grams static weight and the same for swingweight. If you close your eyes and hit each one, it's hard to tell the difference except for the grip shape...the Dunlop is more like a Wilson and the Donnay is rounder with little flare on the end, like a Yonex.
But I think the only real major difference is the power, which the Pro One has more of. I think picking between these 2 is determined by your playing style...singles baseline basher > Pro One. Doubles, all court player> 200G.
both great sticks though for sure and they are almost interchangeable.
Sorry to hijack this thread. JackB-seems like you played the Head IG Radical Pro as well? How do you compare the 3, Pro1, Max 200G. Thanks
I found the Rad Pro quite different from the P1 and 200g. The Rad Pro feels very head heavy and harder to swing for me. But the thing I struggled with most was the flex. The racquet flexes A LOT on impact and made it harder for me to pinpoint my aim. At the time I compared the Rad Pro to the P1 and preferred the P1. I also don't care for the Head grip shape. The P1 has all the power of the Rad Pro, but without the exessive flex and rectangular gripshape.
Both are worth a demo. I personally liked the Pro One better. I found the Dunlop to be one of the more comfortable frames I've hit, but very low powered.
I agree the Pro 1 has more power, but I wouldn't call the 200G "low powered". The mass of the frame when moving behind the ball can provide a lot of power to the ball. What string setup did u try?
Thanks Jack, sounds like I need to try the Pro1 for grins and perhaps the 200G.
Whatever multi TW had in there. The power was definitely below average, even for frames of the same general class. I'm not the only one who thinks so - do a search and check the TW review.
I'll agree that it's power level isn't too bad in the context of classic frames - but relative to what's generally available (and being used on the courts) today, it's easily classified as a touch or finesse frame. It'd be perfect if you've got a sore arm and want something with a big sweetspot, that's forgiving off-center, but also has low pop.
It probably had that horrible Dunlop Silk string. I haven't liked one racquet yet that was strung with that string.
Separate names with a comma.