Hit with a R-22 and a Max 200G today :)

AlfaAce · 12-06-2012, 06:51 PM

Wow! For the first time in 20+ years I hit with a Yonex R-22 and a Max 200G today. Despite the old strings, I was blown away at what great racquets they both are. I know racquet technology has progressed in the last 20 years (I own two Babolat PD2012s and love them), but seriously, there is no doubt in my mind I can play just as well (maybe better

) with the R-22 and 200G on any given day.

The R-22 was more familiar to me as I played one in HS. It's strength was clearly serves and volleys at the net (must be quite head light). Maybe with a bit of lead it could be a bit more solid from the baseline? Regardless, it was great!

The Max 200G, albeit a smaller hitting area than the R-22, was crazy solid, powerful and accurate on groundstrokes and serves. Surprises me that McEnroe would have favored this as a serve-and-volley racquet... but then again he's McEnroe and I'm not. It's a heavy racquet (which made it a little tougher to volley with), but it's also quite amazing given it's age.

Considering that both of these racquets had old(er) strings with low tension, could any of you that are experienced with these racquets recommend a great string tension to try with both of these racquets. I prefer 100% natural gut.

Are there any modern equivalents to these two racquets? I'm not talking about aesthetics (ie: Bio Max 200G)... I mean specs and playability.

Fearsome Forehand · 12-06-2012, 07:13 PM

You have to bear in mind that Mac was comparing the first 200G's to wood. His brother had some demos from Dunlop, John borrowed them and never went back to wood. His game was based on wood rackets, that is an entirely different perspective. Borg had a hard time transitioning from wood to graphite. And when you have played your whole life with a wood racket, it might be a hard transition. Can you imagine having to transition to wood now?

The R-22, like the R-7 before it, is a solid players frame. About an inch head light stock. Stiffness in the 50's? 12 ounces+, 95 sq inches-ish, my kind of frame.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a modern equivalent to either frame. The trend now is toward lighter, stiffer rackets. I am not a fan of most modern frames.

AlfaAce · 12-06-2012, 07:21 PM

Exactly! As I was hitting with the 200G today, I was thinking to myself that this is the first graphite racquet Mac played after wood. It reminded me of a wood racquet in it's weight but played oh-so-much better!

Can't wait to play both of these frames again with fresh nat gut!!!

makinao · 12-06-2012, 09:13 PM

I got a mint condition R-22 a couple of months ago. It is a fantastic, old-skool, solid, hefty racquet. I've only played with it twice, because I've shifted to old-skool OS racquets since then. Surprisingly, none of the other players in my club in my age group want to use it or anything like it, because even they have gotten used to more recent under-12oz sticks.

Hannah19 · 12-06-2012, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fearsome Forehand

You have to bear in mind that Mac was comparing the first 200G's to wood. His brother had some demos from Dunlop, John borrowed them and never went back to wood. His game was based on wood rackets, that is an entirely different perspective. Borg had a hard time transitioning from wood to graphite. And when you have played your whole life with a wood racket, it might be a hard transition. Can you imagine having to transition to wood now?

The R-22, like the R-7 before it, is a solid players frame. About an inch head light stock. Stiffness in the 50's? 12 ounces+, 95 sq inches-ish, my kind of frame.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a modern equivalent to either frame. The trend now is toward lighter, stiffer rackets. I am not a fan of most modern frames.

Transition to wood now is a breeze. Three years ago it took me 15 minutes to adjust and loved it ever since. If you can play tennis, you can play any racket....!!!!! (exceptt maybe the Ergonom, still struggling with that one).

jjaded · 12-06-2012, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hannah19

Transition to wood now is a breeze. Three years ago it took me 15 minutes to adjust and loved it ever since. If you can play tennis, you can play any racket....!!!!! (exceptt maybe the Ergonom, still struggling with that one).

Hannah, what racquet is in your avatar/image. It looks like some beautiful wood.

Shaochieh · 12-06-2012, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hannah19

Transition to wood now is a breeze. Three years ago it took me 15 minutes to adjust and loved it ever since. If you can play tennis, you can play any racket....!!!!! (exceptt maybe the Ergonom, still struggling with that one).

I remember that Ergonom racket when I was 14 and it was a interesting racket but not enough to switch. I played a R23 few days ago and it was way too heavy to play on carpet.

Hannah19 · 12-07-2012, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjaded

Hannah, what racquet is in your avatar/image. It looks like some beautiful wood.

It's the Yamaha Image 99 (YWG 99).
Designed by a guitar designer from Yamaha.
Beautiful walnut grain finish and delicate mosaic wood inlay on the side.
A piece of workmanship and art.

check it out on www.vintagetennisgems.nl

12-06-2012, 06:51 PM	#1
AlfaAce Rookie Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Northern CA Posts: 195	Hit with a R-22 and a Max 200G today :) Wow! For the first time in 20+ years I hit with a Yonex R-22 and a Max 200G today. Despite the old strings, I was blown away at what great racquets they both are. I know racquet technology has progressed in the last 20 years (I own two Babolat PD2012s and love them), but seriously, there is no doubt in my mind I can play just as well (maybe better ) with the R-22 and 200G on any given day. The R-22 was more familiar to me as I played one in HS. It's strength was clearly serves and volleys at the net (must be quite head light). Maybe with a bit of lead it could be a bit more solid from the baseline? Regardless, it was great! The Max 200G, albeit a smaller hitting area than the R-22, was crazy solid, powerful and accurate on groundstrokes and serves. Surprises me that McEnroe would have favored this as a serve-and-volley racquet... but then again he's McEnroe and I'm not. It's a heavy racquet (which made it a little tougher to volley with), but it's also quite amazing given it's age. Considering that both of these racquets had old(er) strings with low tension, could any of you that are experienced with these racquets recommend a great string tension to try with both of these racquets. I prefer 100% natural gut. Are there any modern equivalents to these two racquets? I'm not talking about aesthetics (ie: Bio Max 200G)... I mean specs and playability. Last edited by AlfaAce : 12-06-2012 at 06:55 PM.

12-06-2012, 07:13 PM	#2
Fearsome Forehand Professional Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,020	You have to bear in mind that Mac was comparing the first 200G's to wood. His brother had some demos from Dunlop, John borrowed them and never went back to wood. His game was based on wood rackets, that is an entirely different perspective. Borg had a hard time transitioning from wood to graphite. And when you have played your whole life with a wood racket, it might be a hard transition. Can you imagine having to transition to wood now? The R-22, like the R-7 before it, is a solid players frame. About an inch head light stock. Stiffness in the 50's? 12 ounces+, 95 sq inches-ish, my kind of frame. I think you would be hard pressed to find a modern equivalent to either frame. The trend now is toward lighter, stiffer rackets. I am not a fan of most modern frames. Last edited by Fearsome Forehand : 12-06-2012 at 07:18 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode