dinosaur's modern racquet progression

wallymann

wallymann

Semi-Pro
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.........STATICSW / BAL.....STRINGS.....NOTES
2025-01-01donnay
pro1-limited 1994
95 | 16x18		348330
~6.0HL		lynx-tour
1.20 @ 45		old racquet –> baseline spec
2025-01-01dunlop
cx200-tour 2024
95 | 16x19		350314pure-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
2025-01-12dunlop353325pure-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.
2025-01-13dunlop347330 / ~7.0HLpure-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?
2025-01-17dunlop348330
~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!
2025-01-23head
radical-pro 2023
98 | 16x19		345340
~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
2025-02-20wilson
ultra-pro v4
97 | 16x19		347330
~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
2025-02-23artengo
tr960-control
98 | 16x19		346330
~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?
2025-02-28final choice:
dunlop
cx200 tour 2024
16 x 19		347330
~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)

oPsBHva.png

gReVqEs.jpeg

K23lmGg.png

nUgKu1f.jpeg

dEGqeYg.jpeg
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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/
 
Last edited:
wallymann said:
I have a SW measurement gizmo...what would balance tell me that accurate SW specs doesn't?
Click to expand...

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 :-D
 
Last edited:
thenewbig3 said:
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 :-D
Click to expand...
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.
 
thenewbig3 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
wallymann said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grafil Injection said:
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.
Click to expand...

yep...generally a higher bias, my lead placement generally starts at the 3-9 line and goes up to 1-11.
 
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.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
  • 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
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
wallymann said:
  • wilson ultra-pro added to the mix!
  • artengo tr960-control on deck.
Click to expand...
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.
 
onehandbh said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

uwT961o.jpeg

MwqdakR.jpeg
 
Last edited:
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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!
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
Grafil Injection said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
Grafil Injection said:
Often wondered about the TR960, especially since they're £79 now. How's the feel compared to the CX and UP?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Ezone 98 2025 review
Replies
10
Views
2K
ericykchan
ericykchan
Orezap
String 1.20 recommendations for Wilson Blade Pro v9 18x20?
Replies
3
Views
257
JK208
J
Orezap
Should i switch to Yonex Ezone 98/100 Aqua Night Black?
Replies
21
Views
2K
Vanderpipe24
V
JetFlyr
From Wilson Pro Staff 95 6.0 original to Yonex VCORE Tour G 310 or 330?
Replies
3
Views
719
morten
M
mrtimetravel
Head Lynx Tour vs Yonex Poly Tour Pro
2
Replies
83
Views
18K
Rosstour
Rosstour
Back
Top