C10 Pro vs C10 Pro 2012

Does anyone know if there are any differences between the 2012 model and the previous, say 2010 (yellow) or 2008 (black) models?

TW description says they are just cosmetic updates, but their Power Zone Comparison indicates differences in weight, balance, SW, Twistweight and sweet zones ... etc.

Has anybody played with various generations of C10 Pro and noticed any differences?

The Power Zone comparisons are between individual frames; unlike the basic measurements included on the TW product description pages, the testers do not average together the results of multiple frames. So, there would be surprisingly different TWU test results even for, say, two 2008 C10 Pro frames.

Those in the know say that yes, there is a significant difference. Search for posts by Rabbit, you may find info there as he played the C10 for a long time.

Thanks danix for the info.

I'm pretty sure Rabbit said that the 2008-2012 models are the same.

As for pre 2008, there's a definite difference in the old fishnet version, I have a later bumblebee version and imo that's different to the newer models, maybe a little more solid but we are talking negligible amounts, they perform pretty much the same and I can easily interchange sticks during a game.

Lots of posts here saying it is quite different and not as good.

danix said:

Lots of posts here saying it is quite different and not as good.

Click to expand...

Well, I understand that it was quite different when comparing to the older generations, such as the ones with bumble bee or fishnet paint jobs.

However, from what I have gathered so far from some other posts, the 2008 (black), 2010 (yellow) and the latest 2012 are the same other than the cosmetic difference.

One of the things I've really noticed that is different is that, it's really hard to find rackets that have the same balance and weight even with the same production years.

I recently bought a pair of C10 (current paintjob) and the head balance and weight were off by a couple of ounces as well as HL balance.

ciocc said:

Well, I understand that it was quite different when comparing to the older generations, such as the ones with bumble bee or fishnet paint jobs.

However, from what I have gathered so far from some other posts, the 2008 (black), 2010 (yellow) and the latest 2012 are the same other than the cosmetic difference.

Click to expand...

Yes exactly, I think a lot of it is to do with the way rackets are made now.

tennis.yellow.balls said:

One of the things I've really noticed that is different is that, it's really hard to find rackets that have the same balance and weight even with the same production years.

I recently bought a pair of C10 (current paintjob) and the head balance and weight were off by a couple of ounces as well as HL balance.

Click to expand...

Yes this is what I've found too, I've noticed that my older sticks tend to be weightier in the head, which is fine as mine mod up around 370g but if you don't want the static weight too high then you may have some problems.

tennis.yellow.balls said:

I recently bought a pair of C10 (current paintjob) and the head balance and weight were off by a couple of ounces as well as HL balance.

Click to expand...

Same experience here. I just picked up two used X10 in stock form. One weights 317g and the other one weights 323g. The second one is close to the manufacturer's spec in both weight and HL balance; but the first one is 1/2cm more head heavy.

ciocc said:

Same experience here. I just picked up two used X10 in stock form. One weights 317g and the other one weights 323g. The second one is close to the manufacturer's spec in both weight and HL balance; but the first one is 1/2cm more head heavy.

Click to expand...

Easy mod, just add 6g of lead to top of the handle and they'll be pretty much matched.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

My point wasn't whether I knew how or willing to mod the racket. I was simply surprised that this kind of QC issue slipped thru Volkl's store.

In fact, I was glad that the lighter one was closer to the weight of my BA93 and I felt right at home playing with it.

i just got 3 C10 PRO´s (2008). I will weight them tomorrow with a digital scale to see if they have some differences...

Meaghan said:

Easy mod, just add 6g of lead to top of the handle and they'll be pretty much matched.

Click to expand...

I can't think of a worse place to add lead.

Readers said:

I can't think of a worse place to add lead.

Click to expand...

interesting, why?

i find that adding just a little lead, 6g might be too much, at the top of the grip helps with my volleys and slice backhand, just my personal experience

ciocc said:

My point wasn't whether I knew how or willing to mod the racket. I was simply surprised that this kind of QC issue slipped thru Volkl's store.

In fact, I was glad that the lighter one was closer to the weight of my BA93 and I felt right at home playing with it.

Click to expand...

Ok I was just trying to help.

Readers said:

I can't think of a worse place to add lead.

Click to expand...

Then you must try it, there's a lot of info on these threads that suggest the opposite.

Tried many times, it add next to no power, stability, spin, and very little plow-though.

It's just dead weight.

Readers said:

Tried many times, it add next to no power, stability, spin, and very little plow-though.

It's just dead weight.

Click to expand...

I don't really think its about power, spin or plow but more to do with stability and the science behind how a racket swings. I agree its not for everyone and like any modification it takes time to get the adjustments right to suit your game and swing style etc.

Some interesting threads by John Cauthen and there was another poster who explained some of the science behind it, the weight being just above your hand making the racket swing easier, can't remember his name but interesting posts they were.

treblings said:

interesting, why?

i find that adding just a little lead, 6g might be too much, at the top of the grip helps with my volleys and slice backhand, just my personal experience

Click to expand...

Me too. Lead at the top of the grip added stability and helped to drive through the ball for a low, biting slice.

Meaghan said:

Ok I was just trying to help.

Click to expand...

Oops ... my message wasn't personal, and I appreciate your intention to help.

ciocc said:

Oops ... my message wasn't personal, and I appreciate your intention to help.

Click to expand...

Ha no worries

Meaghan said:

Ha no worries

Click to expand...

Meaghan, how's the X10 doing for you? I remember feeling really disconnected from that frame when I demoed it. It had the steely hoop of the DNX 10 mid but not the throat flex or raw, rich feel. (But the demo was with mid-upper tension syngut, which I loathe, so it's hard to tell.)

Are you still hitting it side by side with the C10?

Meaghan said:

I don't really think its about power, spin or plow but more to do with stability and the science behind how a racket swings. I agree its not for everyone and like any modification it takes time to get the adjustments right to suit your game and swing style etc.

Some interesting threads by John Cauthen and there was another poster who explained some of the science behind it, the weight being just above your hand making the racket swing easier, can't remember his name but interesting posts they were.

Click to expand...

If you want to think about science...

No, add weight to anywhere above your hand cannot physically make it swing easier.

Now, that's a scientific fact.

Pure speculation, rumor and hearsay, but I thought I remember reading that---contrary to what's listed on spec sheets on TW---there hasn't been Kevlar in the mix for quite a while.

I could be wrong though...wouldn't be the first or last time...

Readers said:

If you want to think about science...

No, add weight to anywhere above your hand cannot physically make it swing easier.

Now, that's a scientific fact.

Click to expand...

your scientific fact is quite wrong......

Meaghan said:

your scientific fact is quite wrong......

Click to expand...

:neutral::neutral::|:-|

I don't have time to explain it, you can either go read more on it or keep ignoring the law of physics.

corners said:

Meaghan, how's the X10 doing for you? I remember feeling really disconnected from that frame when I demoed it. It had the steely hoop of the DNX 10 mid but not the throat flex or raw, rich feel. (But the demo was with mid-upper tension syngut, which I loathe, so it's hard to tell.)

Are you still hitting it side by side with the C10?

Click to expand...

Yes there's a similar disconnection like the pb10 mid but weighted up, got about 10g top of hoop and the same to of handle, combined with a lower tension poly (tour bite 1.25) @50 lbs has given me the hoop stiffness of the dnx mid, obviously not the throat flex, but the crispness of the full poly has given me some real nice feel and plow. It really is like having an apd/pb10 mid lovechild. The directional control especially crosscourt to dtl is as good as say the vc95. As for still playing the c10, not really, it feels great but I'm getting similar feel with the x10, ok firmer yes but the feel, connection as you say is as good with my set up. Volleying coming onto the ball with the x10 is as good as it gets but nothing is quite as good as a thin volkl frame and volleying at the net. They are so easily interchangeable that I could easily play one for singles and the other for doubles

Readers said:

:neutral::neutral::|:-|

I don't have time to explain it, you can either go read more on it or keep ignoring the law of physics.

Click to expand...

you're being pedantic.....there are more variables in swinging a tennis racket, yes obviously there's an initial difficulty in getting the thing moving but then surely laws of gravity come into play?

Bloody hell what are we going on about.....I only offered some advice about matching rackets and you piped in saying "it does nothing for me", ok, cool, thanks for the input.

Readers said:

If you want to think about science...

No, add weight to anywhere above your hand cannot physically make it swing easier.

Now, that's a scientific fact.

Click to expand...

You're talking about impact dynamics and Meaghan is thinking about swing dynamics.

There's a whole bunch of stuff on this forum on this topic, and it's all based on modeling a tennis swing as a double pendulum. If you swing the racquet from the handle like a pendulum, adding mass to the top of the grip will make it swing faster. This is pendulum physics, which is different from the things (force, mass, moment of inertia of the racquet, rotational moments applied to the racquet by the hand, etc.) you are thinking about. There is no guarantee that pendulum physics actually applies to tennis strokes, but one of the leading tennis physicists thinks it does - check out the 2nd movie in Rod Cross' paper "The Double Pendulum in Tennis." Notice that the heavier racquet comes through faster than the lighter racquet. What's being demonstrated there is a double pendulum, but to begin a study of the subject, one should become familiar with the frequency of a compound pendulum. You can find the formulas here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum

As you can see, the formula for the period of a compounds pendulum contains the swingweight (moment of inertia), mass and balance point (center of mass) of the pendulum. So mass distribution determines the period of oscillation. Adding mass to the top of the grip of a racquet turns out to have the strongest effect when plugging specs into this formula. Mass added there tends to increase mass very much, balance point a moderate amount, and swingweight very little. Because it changes swingweight very little, you're right to say that adding mass at the top of the grip doesn't greatly change the impact dynamics of the racquet, but it does shorten the period of oscillation.

From there you could look into the equations for the frequency of a double pendulum, where the math gets pretty tricky.

Then the question becomes: Does shortening the period of oscillation have any influence on a tennis stroke? This is an open question, but many people on these boards have experimented with adding mass at the top of the grip and reported that it seems to make the racquet swing through contact more quickly, relative to the arm, which is exactly what the equations for a double pendulum predict. So adding mass to this location might have value in changing the swing dynamics in a way that is advantageous to a player.

If we go back and look at the 2nd video in the Cross paper linked above, a racquet with more mass concentrated at the top of the grip than another, even if they both have the same mass and swingweight, will come through contact more like the "heavy" racquet in the videos; it will come through faster in relation to the "arm." That's been my experience, anyway.

This can be useful for counterbalancing mass added to the hoop. Mass added to the hoop increases swingweight quite a lot and mass very little, and so slows down the frequency of the racquet pendulum. This is an example of where common sense and physics formulas agree - we would expect racquets with more mass in the hoop to swing more slowly. Racquets modified with lots of mass in the head tend to feel very sluggish and feel as though they come through contact lagging behind the arm - more like the "light" racquet in the videos. Some players have found that counterbalancing head mass with additional mass at the top of the handle removes this sluggish feeling and makes the racquet feel faster, or quicker, through contact. This is a counterintuitive phenomena, but that doesn't mean at all that it isn't real.

The post Travlerajm introduced all these ideas to these boards. His thoughts on the value and application of pendulum physics to tennis equipment have been hotly debated, but the physics behind his ideas is textbook stuff. If you've avoided trying lead at the top of the grip you might be surprised on how strongly it can effect the "feel" of a swing, if that's important to you.

Meaghan said:

Yes there's a similar disconnection like the pb10 mid but weighted up, got about 10g top of hoop and the same to of handle, combined with a lower tension poly (tour bite 1.25) @50 lbs has given me the hoop stiffness of the dnx mid, obviously not the throat flex, but the crispness of the full poly has given me some real nice feel and plow. It really is like having an apd/pb10 mid lovechild. The directional control especially crosscourt to dtl is as good as say the vc95. As for still playing the c10, not really, it feels great but I'm getting similar feel with the x10, ok firmer yes but the feel, connection as you say is as good with my set up. Volleying coming onto the ball with the x10 is as good as it gets but nothing is quite as good as a thin volkl frame and volleying at the net. They are so easily interchangeable that I could easily play one for singles and the other for doubles

Click to expand...

Cool, thanks. I definitely have to try that frame with my usual string setup.

Meaghan said:

you're being pedantic.....there are more variables in swinging a tennis racket, yes obviously there's an initial difficulty in getting the thing moving but then surely laws of gravity come into play?

Bloody hell what are we going on about.....I only offered some advice about matching rackets and you piped in saying "it does nothing for me", ok, cool, thanks for the input.

Click to expand...

I am only going to reply to the part that can be discussed, the gravity.


The only time that helps is slice, on sever and overhead, you spend most of the time swing upward, where gravity only hinders you. On forehand, even with the free fall motion at start, you still have to swing up and forward, unlike overhead, your muscle has to do all the work to change the motion from downward to up and forward.


Also even if we are talking about slice it's still going to make it slower, since a slice is not going to be 100% straight down.


G is a constant, so extra weight will not help you swing faster downward, it would help to you get more momentum and kinetic energy, both are not important on slice.

So no, it's not going to be easier physically, you might feel that way, which I can't argue with, but you said you want to think about science...

corners said:

Then the question becomes: Does shortening the period of oscillation have any influence on a tennis stroke? This is an open question, but many people on these boards have experimented with adding mass at the top of the grip and reported that it seems to make the racquet swing through contact more quickly, relative to the arm, which is exactly what the equations for a double pendulum predict.

The post Travlerajm introduced all these ideas to these boards. His thoughts on the value and application of pendulum physics to tennis equipment have been hotly debated, but the physics behind his ideas is textbook stuff. If you've avoided trying lead at the top of the grip you might be surprised on how strongly it can effect the "feel" of a swing, if that's important to you.

Click to expand...

I had the opposite experience, after taking all the lead off the top of handle and put them on hoop and butt-cap, it swings much better for me.

I did read Travlerajm and stoneage's thread, and I am not sure who is right, the theory of stoneage is more sounding to me, but Travlerajm has empirical data to back him up, yet we should also not confuse correlation for causation.

Readers said:

I had the opposite experience, after taking all the lead off the top of handle and put them on hoop and butt-cap, it swings much better for me.

Click to expand...

Well, everyone's different. And you haven't mentioned how "better" is better for you. To me, your setup feels whippy with the head lagging behind. I really like that on serve, but it feels uncomfortable on groundies. Maybe it feels that way to you too but you like it?

I did read Travlerajm and stoneage's thread, and I am not sure who is right, the theory of stoneage is more sounding to me, but Travlerajm has empirical data to back him up, yet we should also not confuse correlation for causation.

Click to expand...

As far as I could tell, stonage didn't have a theory, as such. He was just applying the parallel axis theory to determine the swingweight at various axes of rotation. Travlerajm and others were posting about that five years ago on these boards. (Stonage did provide a very nice spreadsheet though.)

I still don't think stonage ever quite grasped that the whole "MgR/I" thing is about timing and swing feel. He seemed to get hung up on trying to prove that MgR/I had no value, and was pretty peevish about it, I thought. I don't think it can be proved or disproved through equation-augmented argument. A person would have to set up some experiments - use science in other words - to really put the idea to the test. Math alone isn't going to get to a conclusion because there are too many unknowns - whether a double pendulum is a good model for a tennis groundstroke, for starters. For me, the value of MgR/I is about customizing racquets with different specs so that they have the same swing feel or timing. We see questions about this all the time - "I've added weight, should I try to match the balance point so that it swings the same as before?", etc. MgR/I is the only coherent attempt I know of to make timing and swing feel quantifiable.

^^ No matter how you look at it, he did at least get one part(IMO more) right, which is you don't need the g in MgR/I.

Its a bit simple to say gravity only affects strokes that go up or down. And taking your theory into account fh for instance, the racket goes up, down, up, my bh too.....

well that thread is definitely hijacked
any body feel up to the task to explain to a really stupid person(that would be me) how to measure MgR/I on a racket? a how-to rather than a why

treblings said:

well that thread is definitely hijacked
any body feel up to the task to explain to a really stupid person(that would be me) how to measure MgR/I on a racket? a how-to rather than a why

Click to expand...

Yeah, this should probably be moved, but...

Basically, if you have two racquets with the same mass and swingweight, but with difference balance points, the one with balance point furthest from the butt will have higher MgR/I. The frequency of oscillation will be higher and it will feel like it comes through the contact zone faster, in relation to the speed of the arm and hand. At least it feels that way to some people.

If you have two racquets with the same mass and balance point, the one with the lesser swingweight will have higher MgR/I and will feel faster through the contact zone.

If you have two racquets with the same swingweight and balance point, the one with the greater mass will have the higher MgR/I and will feel faster through the contact zone.

The equation is Mass (kg) * balance point (R, in cm) * g (981) divided by I (swingweight 10 cm beyond the buttcap (the approximate wrist joint axis))

The equation for I is (Swingweight + (20*mass(kg)*balance (cm)) - M(kg)*100)

So a frame with the specs, 340g, 31.5 cm, 320 swingweight, would be .34*31.5*981/(320+(20*.34*31.5)-34) = 21.0

Travlerajm contends that the highest-ranked pros use racquets that cluster around an MgR/I = 21.0, or within 20.8 and 21.2, with women tending to prefer higher values, presumably because their arms are shorter. But there are important outliers, especially on the low end - Nadal is closer to 20 than 21, as was Justine Henin.

But the formula is useful to me because I figured out that all my favorite-swinging racquets were around 21.2 (I'm shorter, so this fits the theory.) And I found that if I matched the MgR/I ratio of two racquets with very different swingweights and balance points that they would both swing with the same feel and timing.

So for me, a racquet with the specs 340g, 31.5cm, 320 swingweight feels very similar to one 350 g, 32.5cm, 330 swingweight. I can switch between them and have little difficulty with timing adjustments, and have found that heavier racquets feel lighter and quicker if they are close to my preferred MgR/I value. Knowing this, I can experiment with heavier and lighter racquets and know that I can get them to swing the way I like them to.

People often find a racquet that they just love, in terms of the way it swings. It feels like it swings lighter than the swingweight would suggest, for example. But they also have this other frame that has the impact feel that can't be beat, but it swings sluggish, or whatever. They wish they could combine the swing feel of the one racquet with the impact feel of the other. If this theory is correct, they can use the MgR/I ratio to tune the frame with the great impact feel so that it has the same sweet swing feel of the other one.

But opinions on the value of this thing vary. Who knows? I did notice that the average MgR/I of nearly the entire range of Head's new IG line (the Prestiges in particular) increased by about .2 as compared to the older Youtek line.

Meaghan said:

Its a bit simple to say gravity only affects strokes that go up or down. And taking your theory into account fh for instance, the racket goes up, down, up, my bh too.....

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think we can say with confidence that gravity should be ignored in modeling any stroke.

corners said:

Yeah, this should probably be moved, but...

Click to expand...

Well, what the heck, let's discuss Obama vs Romeny ...:twisted: LOL

corners said:

Yeah, I don't think we can say with confidence that gravity should be ignored in modeling any stroke.

Click to expand...

In the case of MgR/I, it should because it's just a consistent, why do you need it?

Meaghan said:

Its a bit simple to say gravity only affects strokes that go up or down. And taking your theory into account fh for instance, the racket goes up, down, up, my bh too.....

Click to expand...

Affect, yes, help you swing easier, no. Stop putting word in other people's mouth please.

My point was add weight above where your hand hold the racquet can't help you swing easier, even when account for gravity, except slice(maybe, maybe not). Stop the straw man.

Note that I am not counting very rare shot such as smash at waist high near the net. I mean, who customize racquet for those shot?

Readers said:

In the case of MgR/I, it should because it's just a consistent, why do you need it?

Click to expand...

It's in the formula because MgR/I is simply a derivation of the natural frequency of a pendulum. Why take it out? It's just splitting hairs, which is what the whole stonage vs. MgR/I suit ended up coming down to.

Readers said:

Affect, yes, help you swing easier, no. Stop putting word in other people's mouth please.

My point was add weight above where your hand hold the racquet can't help you swing easier, even when account for gravity, except slice(maybe, maybe not). Stop the straw man.

Note that I am not counting very rare shot such as smash at waist high near the net. I mean, who customize racquet for those shot?

Click to expand...

You're assuming that gravity does not play a role in groundstrokes, except for clear low to high forward swings (slice). You can assume whatever you want, but there is no evidence to support your position. Models for tennis swings are really quite primitive, and the scientific literature on how the mass distribution of a tennis racquet impacts strokes is almost non-existent. New models, such as a double-pendulum model, are only now being developed by people like Rod Cross, and are mainly theoretical anyway. I really have no idea if gravity is a significant factor in a tennis swing, or the timing of a tennis swing, but I know that it is a factor. All you have to do is consider that pro forehands gain about 20 mph from the top to the bottom of the backswing as the racquet drops. This is due to gravity, or largely due to it. Is it a big deal to the business end of the stroke, at impact? Who knows? But to simply assume that it's not important seems premature to me, especially if the person doing the assuming has not read all the literature on the topic. But anyway, we got to get this thread back on topic, so I'm out.

corners said:

It's in the formula because MgR/I is simply a derivation of the natural frequency of a pendulum. Why take it out? It's just splitting hairs, which is what the whole stonage vs. MgR/I suit ended up coming down to.

Click to expand...

Not really, they had a lot more disagreement than that, but this is the only thing I see a simple answer.

Again, nothing wrong with keeping it, it's just not needed, it works just as well as a tool to help mod your racquet with or without it.

corners said:

All you have to do is consider that pro forehands gain about 20 mph from the top to the bottom of the backswing as the racquet drops.

Click to expand...

Speed, I am talking about velocity, downward speed doesn't really help a swing that needs to hit the ball forward and up. Unlike some bike/car jumping platform, there is no ground to do the work(apply force to change direction) for you.

Since you don't want to drift this further, I guess we just agree to disagree.

corners said:

Yeah, this should probably be moved, but...

Basically, if you have two racquets with the same mass and swingweight, but with difference balance points, the one with balance point furthest from the butt will have higher MgR/I. The frequency of oscillation will be higher and it will feel like it comes through the contact zone faster, in relation to the speed of the arm and hand. At least it feels that way to some people.

If you have two racquets with the same mass and balance point, the one with the lesser swingweight will have higher MgR/I and will feel faster through the contact zone.

If you have two racquets with the same swingweight and balance point, the one with the greater mass will have the higher MgR/I and will feel faster through the contact zone.

The equation is Mass (kg) * balance point (R, in cm) * g (981) divided by I (swingweight 10 cm beyond the buttcap (the approximate wrist joint axis))

The equation for I is (Swingweight + (20*mass(kg)*balance (cm)) - M(kg)*100)

So a frame with the specs, 340g, 31.5 cm, 320 swingweight, would be .34*31.5*981/(320+(20*.34*31.5)-34) = 21.0

Travlerajm contends that the highest-ranked pros use racquets that cluster around an MgR/I = 21.0, or within 20.8 and 21.2, with women tending to prefer higher values, presumably because their arms are shorter. But there are important outliers, especially on the low end - Nadal is closer to 20 than 21, as was Justine Henin.

But the formula is useful to me because I figured out that all my favorite-swinging racquets were around 21.2 (I'm shorter, so this fits the theory.) And I found that if I matched the MgR/I ratio of two racquets with very different swingweights and balance points that they would both swing with the same feel and timing.

So for me, a racquet with the specs 340g, 31.5cm, 320 swingweight feels very similar to one 350 g, 32.5cm, 330 swingweight. I can switch between them and have little difficulty with timing adjustments, and have found that heavier racquets feel lighter and quicker if they are close to my preferred MgR/I value. Knowing this, I can experiment with heavier and lighter racquets and know that I can get them to swing the way I like them to.

People often find a racquet that they just love, in terms of the way it swings. It feels like it swings lighter than the swingweight would suggest, for example. But they also have this other frame that has the impact feel that can't be beat, but it swings sluggish, or whatever. They wish they could combine the swing feel of the one racquet with the impact feel of the other. If this theory is correct, they can use the MgR/I ratio to tune the frame with the great impact feel so that it has the same sweet swing feel of the other one.

But opinions on the value of this thing vary. Who knows? I did notice that the average MgR/I of nearly the entire range of Head's new IG line (the Prestiges in particular) increased by about .2 as compared to the older Youtek line.

Click to expand...

thanks for answering as you can tell from my questions, i´m a novice at that
do i understand you correctly that if i have two frames with the same mass and the same balance point, than the swingweight could still be different?
Even if it´s the same racquet, for example two prestige mids?

Readers said:

Speed, I am talking about velocity, downward speed doesn't really help a swing that needs to hit the ball forward and up. Unlike some bike/car jumping platform, there is no ground to do the work(apply force to change direction) for you.

Since you don't want to drift this further, I guess we just agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

OK, cheers

ciocc said:

Well, what the heck, let's discuss Obama vs Romeny ...:twisted: LOL

Click to expand...

Have you picked up a c10 yet?

Sorry to hijack this thread - Meaghan, I have replied to your message via your hotmail. Contact me again if you didn't get it.

My Bumpy Road to C10 Pro

Meaghan said:

Have you picked up a c10 yet?

Click to expand...

Well, I bought a C10 from this board but it never showed up at my door even though UPS insisted that they delivered it. It was either stolen or delivered to the wrong person.

I demo'ed a C10 but the demo racket was strung with SG and was too springy (or lively). Instead of getting another C10, I got a pair of used X10s from a local guy and I like the X10 better.