dinosaur's modern racquet progression

[wallymann]

long time dinosaur racquet user here...elsewhere i posted (link) about my discovery of the power/spin potential of modern racquet tech.

now that i have my own somewhat modern gear, i'm going to track my progression & adaptation of my specs/mechanics/game.

DATE	.........RACQUET.........	STATIC	SW / BAL	.....STRINGS.....	NOTES
2025-01-01	donnay pro1-limited 1994 95 | 16x18	348	330 ~6.0HL	lynx-tour 1.20 @ 45	old racquet –> baseline spec
2025-01-01	dunlop cx200-tour 2024 95 | 16x19	350	314	pure-rush 1.18@45	new racquet –> initial spec --> look at that swingweight! initial hit --> sw was way too low, timing massively out of whack lots of spin potential --> liking that effect on my serve hard to really get a read on groundstrokes --> the sw/timing wonkiness going on there seems to be more power on tap --> i need to figure out how to harness
2025-01-12	dunlop	353	325	pure-rush 1.18@45	added +3g at 12 --> sw something closer to what works for me! hitting session update --> super frustrating! my hitting just sucks with this setup! no depth on my groundies, no depth on my returns, lots of mis-hits. my serves are banging though! super tempted just to punt on this whole thing! however, i'm going to get it restrung with lynx-tour as i have on my old racquet.
2025-01-13	dunlop	347	330 / ~7.0HL	pure-rush 1.18@45	pulled 9g out of the grip/handle; added 4g back to the hoop @ 3/9. SW now where i like it, balance is pretty close. 1/17 hitting update these specs make it definitely more workable now 1HBH works well with this setup, free depth and pace...thats a win serve also works well...flat gets plenty of pace w/o working too hard; kick/slice both get lots of spin w/o working too hard...another win FH still need to get my timing/loading sorted, but i think its workable...my FH has never been a particularly lethal weapon, so i think the wins on the serve and 1HBH are worth spending the effort to get the FH sorted. another observation i have is that it can sometimes feel "mushy" -- maybe this is the pure-rush strings and lynx-tour will help?
2025-01-17	dunlop	348	330 ~7.0HL	lynx-tour 1.20@45	dropped one off at the stringers to try out my "old faithful" string setup -- will be interesting to see how this fares! 1/20 hitting update the lynx-tour feels more crisp and more to my liking -- not mushy like the pure-rush it does feel like there's a slight reduction in power compared to the pure-rush, but the feel/feedback is more important. cutting the pure-rush out of #1 and going with the lynx-tour for the pair. 2/15 hitting update tried lynx-tour 1.25@45 to help with the "mushiness"...feels about the same but a definite loss in power/pop -> not good!
2025-01-23	head radical-pro 2023 98 | 16x19	345	340 ~4.0HL	sonic-pro 1.3@52 lynx-tour 1.20@45	came strung with sonic-pro, finished up my grip mods static is pretty close. SW is marginally higher than where i've landed, but balance quite a bit more head-heavy. heading on vacation so it'll be a minute before i hit! 2/15 hitting update felt nice on groundies, but zero power on my serves also tried it with lynx-tour 1.20@45# to keep things consistent...groundies nice, but serves have no pop feels like something about the heavier SW and less HL balance aint for me --> hard to take weight *out* of the hoop, so going back to the dunlops
2025-02-20	wilson ultra-pro v4 97 | 16x19	347	330 ~7.0HL	lynx-tour 1.20@45	another players racquet added to the mix! initial hitting session in a "lightweight" configuration with a few grams at 3/9 was abysmal...no power/depth at all added +15g of lead spread between 12/6/throat to get the specs where i like feels great, nice depth/pop, good bite on the ball, serves are sweet; can easily switch between this and the dunlop i prefer the sound coming off the wilson's stringbed, so this is in the lead
2025-02-23	artengo tr960-control 98 | 16x19	346	330 ~7.0HL	lynx-tour 1.20@45	back from the stringers and weighted up to spec...will try to hit this week 2/25 hitting update seems like it has more pop, but it feels a bit sluggish and "heavy" --> this is puzzling because the static / sw / balance are identical to the wilson and dunlop. what might it be --> maybe higher twistweight?
2025-02-28	final choice: dunlop cx200 tour 2024 16 x 19	347	330 ~7.0HL	lynx-tour 1.20@45	the wilson and artengo play well enough, i'd be fine with either of them but the dunlop feels a bit more crisp, more feedback, more bite on the ball done chasing my tail (for the moment)

 

[Grafil Injection]

I've played with a number of CX200Ts, all owned by advanced players and coaches I know. They have all added 2-3g lead at 3 & 9 as well as a few grams at 12 in some cases. In your case having added 30g to the handle, I should think a few more grams around the hoop may help. When customised, they feel almost as good as a MW 200G, which is the biggest complement you can get.

 

[wallymann]

today was not a good day. how do you guys make a valid evaluation of new racquets?

• added +3g at 12 --> sw something closer to what works for me!
• hitting session update --> super frustrating! my hitting just sucks with this setup!
• no depth on my groundies, no depth on my returns, lots of mis-hits.
• my serves are banging though! super tempted just to punt on this whole thing!
• however, i'm going to get it restrung with lynx-tour as i have on my old racquet

 

[McLovin]

Is that date correct? 2024-01-12? Last year?

 

[wallymann]

Is that date correct? 2024-01-12? Last year?

nope...updated to '25!!!

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Take a racket to a singles tournament, if you find yourself playing and not thinking about the racket at all, you found a good one.

 

[Grafil Injection]

Did you try it before adding 30g to the handle? The Dunlop grip shape is pretty good with eg. a layer of electrical tape, a base grip and 1 og. Then just the 4-6g in the hoop for 340g ish total.

 

[wallymann]

Did you try it before adding 30g to the handle? The Dunlop grip shape is pretty good with eg. a layer of electrical tape, a base grip and 1 og. Then just the 4-6g in the hoop for 340g ish total.

nope. 2 grip sizes too small is just too much a difference.

 

[thenewbig3]

This is what I kinda did
1. Dont constantly change strings during the steps and definitely no new "fancy" strings from TTW forum threads

2. Get used to playing factory L4 on everything so you don't need to do all that extra work and weight adjusting

3. Pick a base SW to set racket at (say 320SW) and go up from there IF and only IF needed

4. Try to get everything to an intermediate balance say around 7HL which you dont seem to mention or track above.

5. Dont take MGRI too seriously but use it to find general recipes in the same ballpark - I bet there are massive MGRI differences between your working setup and bad setup - https://impactingtennis.com/education-tools/mgr-i/

 

[thenewbig3]

Take a racket to a singles tournament, if you find yourself playing and not thinking about the racket at all, you found a good one.

Do you do stuff like this? If you are are even more crazier than I thought

 

[FuzzyYellowBalls]

Do you do stuff like this? If you are are even more crazier than I thought

Sure, I even have swapped rackets every set in a tourney, still winning the match lol. But, if you don't actually demo a racket in a real singles or tournament, do you really know if it's for you or not? And since demos are time limited, a tournament weekend can really be good for testing.

 

[wallymann]

4. Try to get everything to an intermediate balance say around 7HL which you dont seem to mention or track above.

I have a briffidi SW measurement gizmo...what would balance tell me that accurate SW measurement doesn't?

 

[thenewbig3]

I have a SW measurement gizmo...what would balance tell me that accurate SW specs doesn't?

I cant give you a super scientific answer but more of a somewhat empirical one. Personally have to focus on a holistic blend on all 3 for a racket to feel right.

Fore example Ive tried for example all 3 of the following on the same racket Ultra Pro V3 18x20
330g/4HL/332SW
340g/7HL/332SW - this was preferred and my timing was good
350g/10HL/332SW

I would suggest you lock SW and play around with weight and balance to understand things.

But when I moved to a more stable racket and wider beam (Ezone98) I tried the same setup timing felt OK but not perfect.
I dropped it to 335g / 7HL / 324SW... going any further lower yielded no benefits and timing felts great on all strokes.

Also you need balance for MGRI
https://impactingtennis.com/education-tools/mgr-i/ Talks about a ROGER racket and a DMITROV racket. I happened to have both - an RF97 and a 97S which are basically the same SW but very different weight and balance and I actually couldn't really find timing with the 97S. Adding weight to the handle re-balanced it with minimal weight increase and I was able to find the timing again. I also used MGRI to get my timing working with a Toalson Sweet Area 280 despite being nowhere in the ball park of my regular racket either weight, balance or SW wise.

For me personally 350g/315SW might be around 12 HL I just wouldnt be able to bring the racket around because it would feel like it wouldnt want to swing through the ball after the racket drop and uncoil initialization - unlike a racket that feels correct might feel like it wants to swing itself.

To get that dunlop moving for me I would have to add 3-5g at 12 which would drop the balance 1-1.5HL and then I would remove like 10-15g in the handle which would drop it another 2-3HL

A little science is good.... but too much science is well... too much

 

[Conrado85]

I cant give you a super scientific answer but more of a somewhat empirical one. Personally have to focus on a holistic blend on all 3 for a racket to feel right.

Fore example Ive tried for example all 3 of the following on the same racket Ultra Pro V3 18x20
330g/4HL/332SW
340g/7HL/332SW - this was preferred and my timing was good
350g/10HL/332SW

I would suggest you lock SW and play around with weight and balance to understand things.

But when I moved to a more stable racket and wider beam (Ezone98) I tried the same setup timing felt OK but not perfect.
I dropped it to 335g / 7HL / 324SW... going any further lower yielded no benefits and timing felts great on all strokes.

Also you need balance for MGRI
https://impactingtennis.com/education-tools/mgr-i/ Talks about a ROGER racket and a DMITROV racket. I happened to have both - an RF97 and a 97S which are basically the same SW but very different weight and balance and I actually couldn't really find timing with the 97S. Adding weight to the handle re-balanced it with minimal weight increase and I was able to find the timing again. I also used MGRI to get my timing working with a Toalson Sweet Area 280 despite being nowhere in the ball park of my regular racket either weight, balance or SW wise.

For me personally 350g/315SW might be around 12 HL I just wouldnt be able to bring the racket around because it would feel like it wouldnt want to swing through the ball after the racket drop and uncoil initialization - unlike a racket that feels correct might feel like it wants to swing itself.

To get that dunlop moving for me I would have to add 3-5g at 12 which would drop the balance 1-1.5HL and then I would remove like 10-15g in the handle which would drop it another 2-3HL

A little science is good.... but too much science is well... too much

I would be willing to bet that this UP setup at 340g/7HL/332SW would be perfect on the Dunlop in question. Maybe even 335g/6HL/330SW.

 

[Grafil Injection]

nope. 2 grip sizes too small is just too much a difference.

Any chance of selling yours and getting a size 4? I see a few of them at UK shops. They play best around 340-345g, 5-7pt HL, which unsurprisingly is the stock spec of the Revelation/MW/HM/MFil/Aerogel 200Gs.

 

[wallymann]

To get that dunlop moving for me I would have to add 3-5g at 12 which would drop the balance 1-1.5HL and then I would remove like 10-15g in the handle which would drop it another 2-3HL

fwiw...my gamer donnays are ~6HL.

i'm going to put the dunlops back on the bench and re-work the handle build-up using a lighter material. currently birch plywood veneer, will move to balsawood. should save a fair portion of weight i can use elsewhere.

in the meantime, going back to the donnay!

edit: i just pulled 9g out of the grip/handle w/o re-doing the build-up...i replaced the base gamma grip with 2 layers of tournagrip pulled super-tight so no loss in definition.

 

[Grafil Injection]

fwiw...my gamer donnays are ~6HL.

i'm going to put the dunlops back on the bench and re-work the handle build-up using a lighter material. currently birch plywood veneer, will move to balsawood. should save a fair portion of weight i can use elsewhere.

in the meantime, going back to the donnay!

edit: i just pulled 10g out of the handle w/o re-doing the build-up...i replaced the base gamma grip with 2 layers of tournagrip pulled super-tight so no loss in definition.

Nice. When bouncing a ball gently indoors you should be able to feel where the sweet-zone is. If it seems low in the hoop, put a few grams at 10 & 2. If it feels high, put a few grams at 4 & 8 (my favorite), or at 3 & 9 if it feels central already. You should feel increased stability even just with a few ceiling tennis hits.

 

[wallymann]

Nice. When bouncing a ball gently indoors you should be able to feel where the sweet-zone is. If it seems low in the hoop, put a few grams at 10 & 2. If it feels high, put a few grams at 4 & 8 (my favorite), or at 3 & 9 if it feels central already. You should feel increased stability even just with a few ceiling tennis hits.

yep...generally a higher bias, my lead placement generally starts at the 3-9 line and goes up to 1-11.

 

[wallymann]

1/17 hitting update

• rejiggered specs make it definitely more workable now
• 1HBH works well with this setup, free depth and pace...thats a win
• serve also works well...flat gets plenty of pace w/o working too hard...kick/slice both get lots of spin w/o working too hard...another win
• FH still need to get my timing/loading sorted, but i think its workable...my FH has never been a particularly lethal weapon, so i think the wins on the serve and 1HBH are worth spending the effort to get the FH sorted.

 

[wallymann]

Latest twist...just picked up a 2023 head radical pro to add to my confusion... testing a buddy's radical team (link) is what started this whole adventure!

 

[thenewbig3]

Latest twist...just ordered a 2023 head radical pro to add to my confusion... testing a buddy's radical team (link) is what started this whole adventure!

Just Curious - Any reason you didn't just buy a couple of Radical Team that matched your budd's unit?

 

[wallymann]

Just Curious - Any reason you didn't just buy a couple of Radical Team that matched your budd's unit?

Yep. Not a fan of 100+ heads. Stupid, but there it is...

 

[wallymann]

1/20 hitting update --> my baseline lynx-tour string setup is more to my liking!

 

[wallymann]

Latest twist...just picked up a 2023 head radical pro to add to my confusion... testing a buddy's radical team (link) is what started this whole adventure!

 

[wallymann]

• wilson ultra-pro added to the mix!
• artengo tr960-control on deck.

• another players racquet added to the mix!
• initial hitting session in a "lightweight" configuration with a few grams at 3/9 was abysmal...no power/depth at all
• added +15g of lead spread between 12/6/throat to get the specs where i like
• feels great, nice depth/pop, good bite on the ball, serves are sweet; can easily switch between this and the dunlop
• i prefer the sound coming off the wilson's stringbed, so this is in the lead

 

[onehandbh]

• wilson ultra-pro added to the mix!
• artengo tr960-control on deck.

What is it that you liked about your Donnay Pro One? What do you hope to get more of or improve from switching to a new racquet?

I made the switch many years ago from the PS85 to the K90 and then Yonex 95D, and then Blade Pro 16x19 & 18x20 and now back to the Yonex 95D again.

 

[wallymann]

What is it that you liked about your Donnay Pro One? What do you hope to get more of or improve from switching to a new racquet?

donnay: i like the feel/familiarity of an old-school racquet.

looking for a little more bite and a little more free power. not alot. just marginal gains. but dont want to completely abandon what i like about the older stuff, either.

i have that now with the cx200T and ultra-pro. i'm happy with the wilson as my new gamer.

i do have the tr960 already on deck so i'll try that out as well.

 

[wallymann]

artengo now in the mix! hitting report pending.

also, here are the various weight adjustments i made to get them to the same target weight/balance specs.

 

[Grafil Injection]

Appreciating the thorough analysis. I noticed some of the lead on the CX200 moved from around 10 & 2. How is it removing the lead from the frame - can you re-use it?

 

[wallymann]

Appreciating the thorough analysis. I noticed some of the lead on the CX200 moved from around 10 & 2. How is it removing the lead from the frame - can you re-use it?

once the lead is fully installed and "rubbed down" it cannot be reused -- its so thin and pliable that the act of pulling it up destroys it.

 

[thenewbig3]

once the lead is fully installed and "rubbed down" it cannot be reused -- its so thin and pliable that the act of pulling it up destroys it.

Depends on the brand of lead tape and status of the glue. Ive had good luck reusing the large 36 yard roll gamma lead tape as long as it was applied in the last few weeks. The off brands from amazin and smaller packs seem to break apart like @wallymann mentioned and sometimes even have to use nails to claw it out...

 

[wallymann]

so the artengo is a riddle...hit for a few rotations in live-ball practice...seems like it has more pop, but it feels a bit sluggish and "heavy" --> this is puzzling because the static / sw / balance are identical to the wilson and dunlop.

what might it be --> maybe higher twistweight?

between the wilson and dunlop, they are really really similar...they feel the same in hand, similar power, similar grip on the ball, similar serve. the difference is feel -- dunlop slightly sharper with more feedback, wilson slightly muted. i want to like the wilson, but i think i'm leaning toward the dunlop.

but the artengo is still lurking...it does feel like it gives me more pop/depth...if i can figure it out some free power would be nice!

 

[Grafil Injection]

The tr960 is slightly more tear-drop shaped than the CXT, slightly larger headed, wider throat and thicker beamed, which could explain the slightly more hefty feel. More like a non-Tour's spec.

 

[wallymann]

The tr960 is slightly more tear-drop shaped than the CXT, slightly larger headed, wider throat and thicker beamed, which could explain the slightly more hefty feel. More like a non-Tour's spec.

after some cogitation...i removed -1g from 3/9, -1g from 6, -1g from throat, shifted remaining 3/9 mass downward slightly and also shifted the weight in the throat up slightly.

net effect reduces static/sw slightly, maintains balance, and makes the overall distribution a *teensy* bit less polarized.

not yuge changes, but since the artengo is starting out pretty close...i want to creep up on "equivalent" on-court feel/dynamics.

doing some air-swings around the house the artengo feels good in this config.

old: static = 346, sw = 330, balance = 7HL
new: static = 343, sw = 325, balance = 7HL

 

[Grafil Injection]

Often wondered about the TR960, especially since they're £79 now. How's the feel compared to the CX and UP?

 

[wallymann]

Often wondered about the TR960, especially since they're £79 now. How's the feel compared to the CX and UP?

still figuring it out, plus my racquets are all weighted up so take my findings with a grain of salt.

before making the tweaks above...

• tr960 feels *slightly* heavy/sluggish in comparison, but its not sluggish in an absolute sense.
• tr960 also feels like more pop/depth on groundies.
• havent yet tried serving with it yet.

 

[wallymann]

made my choice: dunlop cx200 tour

• the dunlop feels a bit more crisp, more feedback, more bite on the ball, and works for my serve
• the wilson and artengo play well and i'd be happy to play with either of them, i'm really splitting hairs
• if i'd have started with either of the other 2, i'd probably would have stuck with one of them!
• done chasing my tail (for the moment)

 

[wallymann]

update on the journey:

have been really enjoying the CX200T this season -- results have been up and down, but that's more due to the guy than the stick.

and here's the thing about the guy: i'm not young and have come to realize that i cant play at the level i did 20-30 years ago...or even 10 years ago -- as much as i like the CX200T, a little help would be nice.

mainly looking for some added pop/power...as i get deeper into a match my energy level dips and its harder and harder to generate pace/depth and maintain consistency.

given i prefer the feel and vibe of old school racquets that might be a tough needle to thread.

my next experiment will be the CX400T, not too far afield of where i am now --> boxy gamer vibe, but 23mm beam and more generous 100sqin head.

racquet is in-bound, i'll have it strung up with the same lynx-tour 1.2mm and 46/44 tension i have in the CX200T and see how it feels in practice.

 

[Grafil Injection]

Why not the new CX 200 MAX 200G paint-job? Full details arrive 1st August.

Or how about a multi-hybrid in the CX? Should add power and comfort.

 

[Trip]

@wallymann - I think you would probably be well-served by moving to higher-percent-usable string bed area and larger sweet spot (ie. parallel drilling), higher ratio of power/stability/plow to weight. It doesn't necessarily have to be a full-blown, thick-beamed, chunky tweener, but at least something in the realm of a "pleener" (player/tweener cross-over frame), probably a 98 or a quick-enough 100, but similar enough in beam and flex/impact profile as you're used to, so a hybrid-box shape, constant width or close to it, and a highly consistent string bed, in the vein of the following:

- Babolat Strike 98 16x19, but only under-spec for low-290's SW via matching service
- Dunlop CX 200, only if you don't mind having to customize, a lot
- Dunlop CX 400 Tour, but again, only on or under-spec via matching service (you don't want to end up with a high-290's+ SW copy, trust me)
- Head Boom Pro - It is very muted/vague in feel, but if you can get past that (maybe with an ultra-crisp string setup), it's Head's most universally-playable 98 in stock form, by a fairly wide margin.
- Head Extreme Pro, with low-moderate customization
- Tecnifibre TF40 305 16x19 - A softer-flexing, possibly better-feeling take on the TFight, and you can address the grip shape with your skill set if needed.
- Tecnifibre TFight 305s - Raw, fairly firm, almost "ceramic" feel, in a very controlled package; somewhat-low sweet spot location, and again grip shape can be self-addressed.
- Solinco WhiteOut 18x20 v1 - Really nice raw-but-dampened feel, big sweet spot provided you string low enough, and it still lifts and spins like a 16-main'er
- Volkl Vostra V9 305g - This is ironically probably the best potential fit, if for no other reason than they make a proper Grip 5 and it's like a bit quicker version of a Strike 100 (due to the more oval hoop shape)
- Wilson Blade v9 98 16x19 or 100, with some handle weight (yes, a head-heavier weighting than you're used to, but possibly worth a try anyways, just to see if it could unlock something for you)
- Wilson Pro Staff X - This is more the weighting you're used to. Literally an upsized PS97 with higher twist weight and a more open string pattern. Solid, direct feel. Could be a winner.

So that's the kind of stuff I would key in on. The CX400T I would imagine is probably going to be near the top end of maybe what you're looking for in power profile, but if that fits, then maybe that's your new frame.

Best of luck. Keep us posted.

 

[thenewbig3]

update on the journey:
....
racquet is in-bound, i'll have it strung up with the same lynx-tour 18 and 46/44 tension i have in the CX200T and see how it feels in practice.

My thoughts
1) CX200T > CX400T : perfect progression. While @Trip post in general is good... its just a totally unnecessary wild goose chase
2) Going from 95 to 100 typically would need a 1 gauge thicker string + 2-3lbs in my experience or atleast +4-5 lbs without gauging up : Because LT 18 is thicker than usual you should be fine BUT tension up anyway.
3) Try to keep overall weight down as going to 350g/330SW with 23mm beam will make it a bear. Try 335g/325SW instead of 350g/330SW and go from there. Also trying to go modern BUT keeping 1990s specs is not going to help much IMHO.

 

[Trip]

1) CX200T > CX400T : perfect progression. While @Trip post in general is good... its just a totally unnecessary wild goose chase

I wanted to give him options from multiple brands, if he so chose to explore. Otherwise, you're quite possibly right. Might just as well transition to the CX400T.

2) Going from 95 to 100 typically would need a 1 gauge thicker string + 2-3lbs in my experience or atleast +4-5 lbs without gauging up : Because LT 18 is thicker than usual you should be fine BUT tension up anyway.
3) Try to keep overall weight down as going to 350g/330SW with 23mm beam will make it a bear. Try 335g/325SW instead of 350g/330SW and go from there. Also trying to go modern BUT keeping 1990s specs is not going to help much IMHO.

Agreed on both points wholeheartedly.

 

[wallymann]

double-post

 

[wallymann]

3) Try to keep overall weight down as going to 350g/330SW with 23mm beam will make it a bear. Try 335g/325SW instead of 350g/330SW and go from there. Also trying to go modern BUT keeping 1990s specs is not going to help much IMHO.

funny...whilst waiting for the CX400T i re-adjusted this '80s donnay PRO50 to 332g and 326SW...great minds!

stiffness measures up to be roughly equivalent to ~60RA and head is 104 actual...so this might be a fun experiment to see how well an ancient OS stick can play configured with modern specs and strings (head lynx-tour).

 

[wallymann]

2) Going from 95 to 100 typically would need a 1 gauge thicker string + 2-3lbs in my experience or atleast +4-5 lbs without gauging up : Because LT 18 is thicker than usual you should be fine BUT tension up anyway.

that's the common guidance when going to larger heads...if i stick with the same string/gauge *and* tension as i use in the CX200T/95, what will the hitting experience be like in the CX400T/100 or any larger racquet for that matter?

 

[thenewbig3]

that's the common guidance when going to larger heads...if i stick with the same string/gauge *and* tension as i use in the CX200T/95, what will the hitting experience be like in the CS400T/100 or any larger racquet for that matter?

Personally - as an admittedly unnecessarily aggressive player - I am typically unable to trust the combo of increased launch angle & pocketing - rather be little stiffer and then let it open up. For me EZ98 (Conf16L x CF1.20) going to EZ100 I had to increase cross thickness (CF1.25) and go up +3 lbs overall to have a trust-able string bed even for my stock rally ball. Maybe you should give it a shot. Most old schoolers and their Eastern grips dont love low tension BUT you might not be such a dinosaur after all.

funny...whilst waiting for the CX400T i re-adjusted this '80s donnay PRO50 to 332g and 326SW...great minds!
stiffness measures up to be roughly equivalent to ~60RA and head is 104 actual...so this might be a fun experiment to see how well an ancient OS stick can play configured with modern specs and strings (head lynx-tour).

That flat throat reminds me of my favorite racket from the 1980 - Bought it recently for $10 - So solid, So Loopy, So awesome.

 

[fuzz nation]

update on the journey:

have been really enjoying the CX200T this season -- results have been up and down, but that's more due to the guy than the stick.

and here's the thing about the guy: i'm not young and have come to realize that i cant play at the level i did 20-30 years ago...or even 10 years ago -- as much as i like the CX200T, a little help would be nice.

mainly looking for some added pop/power...as i get deeper into a match my energy level dips and its harder and harder to generate pace/depth and maintain consistency.

given i prefer the feel and vibe of old school racquets that might be a tough needle to thread.

my next experiment will be the CX400T, not too far afield of where i am now --> boxy gamer vibe, but 23mm beam and more generous 100sqin head.

racquet is in-bound, i'll have it strung up with the same lynx-tour 18 and 46/44 tension i have in the CX200T and see how it feels in practice.

Cool thread.

I've enjoyed a long-term relationship with a pair of 98" Volkls - C10 Pro and Organix 10 325g (tuned w/lead tape) - and yet it seems that I've never completely outgrown that little piece of my tennis DNA that was formed while I was using wood racquets as a kid in the late 70's/early 80's. The narrow beam of the C10 was always rather attractive, it offered more comfortable flex (compared with the ProStaff 6.1 Classics), but that head size also seemed to also bring lots of extra potential juice to my shots. My O10's worked great as a more spin-friendly alternative to my C10's and their tuned weight/balance were also familiar enough to make switching off very easy. I had a nice tandem in the bag there.

My 12.5 oz. (and very head-light) Volkls seemed to be working against me more recently, so I've tried experimenting with a couple of leaner alternatives. One is the Prince Phantom 97 and the other is the 18x20 Dunlop CX 200T. I'm on-and-off with the Phantom, but the Dunlop only needs a little extra heft and stability to be very good for me - it's feel and behavior in stock form are rather welcoming. I have no issue with the dense string pattern - this racquet seems to do exactly what I tell it to do and nothing more. If I swipe across the ball for more spin, it will turn the ball for me just fine. I just can't swing lazy with it or it gives me the stink eye and produces a pretty weak ball. I've tried some tuning with lead on the hoop, but haven't found a cozy balance between stable and "swingable" just yet.

But then I got the itch to dust off my retro rigs. I have a few older mids; Yonex MP Tour-1 (90"), Head LM Prestige (90"), and Prince NXG (92"). The LM Prestige had nowhere near enough HL balance in its stock form (at around 12.6 oz.) for me to swing it naturally, so after adding enough lead to the handle to get up to about 11 pts. HL and 13.4 oz., it became playable for me and was quite useful at least as a training racquet. It actually worked wonders for my stroke preparation years ago when I was retooling my ground strokes.

The NGX mids have been the big surprise. Here I am thinking I need to find something that's less cumbersome, but then I've used these 13 oz. (with no tuning) frames for a couple of long workouts lately and they've been absurdly good for me. Soft (they may have rated at 58 with an 18mm or 19mm beam width), solid enough to thump the ball on demand with all that heft, but not explosive like any of my 98" frames can be. Spin? Absurd! If there are more rpm's to be had with something else, I really don't need or want them.

Cooler heads would say that I should be trending toward more of a middleweight with at least a 98"-100" head, but for now I suppose I'm going to be indulging my wood-racquet DNA and using what's working. I'm 59 and not an especially dedicated gym rat, but my shoulder it doing a-okay with these NXG's. Every time I've revisited my collection of mids in the recent past, they've always given me a sobering update of just how well (or not so much) I'm doing with my footwork. They only reward me with good shots when my feet aren't being lazy.

...the ball keeps on bouncing...

 

[thenewbig3]

The NXG mids have been the big surprise. Here I am thinking I need to find something that's less cumbersome, but then I've used these 13 oz. (with no tuning) frames for a couple of long workouts lately and they've been absurdly good for me. Soft (they may have rated at 58 with an 18mm or 19mm beam width), solid enough to thump the ball on demand with all that heft, but not explosive like any of my 98" frames can be. Spin? Absurd! If there are more rpm's to be had with something else, I really don't need or want them.

I had all 3 NXGs at one point (Mid, MP, OS) - In my honest opinion they were shockingly poor with a disconnected lifeless feel with poly despite the grommet-less design. But with fresh synthetic gut they were all really shockingly good to play with. The 92 had a really tight pattern from memory and I had a lot of fun using Gamma TNT2 React Pro 17. Another crappy racket (with poly) that was really nice with Syngut on Triple Threat Graphite.

 

[fuzz nation]

I had all 3 NXGs at one point (Mid, MP, OS) - In my honest opinion they were shockingly poor with a disconnected lifeless feel with poly despite the grommet-less design. But with fresh synthetic gut they were all really shockingly good to play with. The 92 had a really tight pattern from memory and I had a lot of fun using Gamma TNT2 React Pro 17. Another crappy racket (with poly) that was really nice with Syngut on Triple Threat Graphite.

Agree - I remember that Triple Threat Graphite as quite the mixed bag.

I play almost exclusively with syn. gut and a snappy 17 ga. layout in my NXG mids has been really nice for me. I might also sample a bed of that 18 ga. Gosen OGSM in one of them if I can remember where I stashed a couple of sets. Either way I know that these mids with their very dense string pattern did away with any of my theories that a dense string pattern has relatively low spin potential.

The NXG mp was one that I tried to like for a bit, but we never really took off. Maybe my affinity for any racquet starts to fade when the head sizes get up beyond 95".

 

[wallymann]

CX400t in-hand, building up grip 3->5 before restringing