Dunlop CX 2024 line

Trip said:
Supposedly a regular 98" CX 200 18x20. Perhaps just a Japan-only release? Paintjob is meh. A little too eye-gouging for my taste. Lose the yellow.

CX200-18x20.jpg
Click to expand...
I kind of dig this actually
 
Trip said:
Supposedly a regular 98" CX 200 18x20. Perhaps just a Japan-only release? Paintjob is meh. A little too eye-gouging for my taste. Lose the yellow.

CX200-18x20.jpg
Click to expand...

The yellow text is more gold in person - matt gold.

I weighed 3 CX Limited Edition CX200 16x19 last week, and the SW were 5-9 higher than the regular red version.
 
Notorious_Junkballer said:
Could it be that they're correcting the SW "mistake" they made on the fly on these fresh models without announcing anything. :unsure:
Click to expand...
I very much hope so. I measured 20+ pieces of the red CX200/Tour and all but 4 came in SW below 280 (unstrung). I measured 3 Limited Edition and they come in at SW 285-290...
 
Last edited:
I'm still using the 16x19 2024 cx tour's. Weighted up to around 330 SW. Great frame that has a good control/power balance. I find it more powerful than the Vcore 95 line, yet enough control to still feel like a players frame. One handed top spin BH's are amazing as well as slices. Great for an all arounder who wants a modern playing frame with classic feel. The spin potential is actually very good and I always forget that I'm playing with a 95 because you can really make kick serves and top spin shots dance around the court. I don't find that it struggles that much in defensive situations because it has really good spin potential and it's pretty forgiving too. I wouldn't play it in stock form but leaded up it's really good.

I'm wondering how the Pro Staff 97 would compare to it but I'm pretty happy with my current set up and don't want to try anything at the moment.

The launch angle is just chef's kiss for me personally as it's not too closed and not too open. My forehand is very spinny and I like to hit a lot of penetrating slices on my backhand side so I feel like this frame works really well for that. I found the SV 95 launch angle to be a bit lower, less spinny and also the 2022 Ezone 98 to have less spin potential than the 2024 cx tour 16x19.
 
Last edited:
GermanBeast said:
I was very curious to try the CX 200 Tour 16x19 by myself and compare it with the PP. So, I bought one.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to try it for the first time but only for an hour. I strung it up with my favourite string Head Lynx 1.20mm (48/46 lbs).
In summary, I can confirm the statement of Troy for 100%. It plays much much faster than the PP. Because of high RHS It felt that I had a bit more free power with CX, but my shots were definitely less heavy. ball placement, launch angle and depth were great. The feel is very nice. Felt very connected to my shots. It felt a bit stiffer, but at the same very comfortable. The PP has much more flex in the hoop.
The main difference between these two is the swing weight and stability. PP has much more weight behind the shot and is more stable. BUT, I was very impressed by the stability of the CX 200 Tour in stock. For its thin beam and low swing weight, It felt very stable. Much more stable than f.e. Vcore 95 (2018). I had no problems with fast incoming balls on my OHB or block back fast serves with a bh slice. The racket doesn‘t twist in my hand, but serve returns with bh slice were landing a bit short. Also, I was struggeling a bit on defensive, where I noticed the low SW the most.

I measured my CX 200 Tour unstrung:
Weight: 311g
Balance: 30.8 cm
SW: ?
Can anybody estimate the SW?

For the next time, I will try some lead at 3 and 9 (2 and 2g).

If I can get a bit more SW, but keep the maneuverability and playability, than it is a possible switch for me from my PP.
Click to expand...
One of my CX 200 Tour's came with

Weight: 309g
Balance: 31.01 cm
SW : 278 SW

So based on your specs I would think your SW would be around 275
 
Yes the CX 200 tour and CX 200 series in general have a very nice feel to them.
I am concerned though that here in Australia that Dunlop is only bringing in the limited series as the CX 400 Tour. They seem to have aversion to 18/20’s here;
 
Any of you old school aerogel 200 folks using the CX 200s now? I did for a while, but it was the 2020 16x19 version leaded up. Wonder how they changed the layup since then.
 
I really don't understand what dunlop is trying to do with these swingweights. Regular cx200 basically unplayable at unstrung 270, yet after 1 years later they do the same thing.

I am not buying that "platform racket " bull$h1t because it's not. You can't have an entire line dedicated to customization.

I suspect dunlop deliberately trying to remove CX line by sobataging themselves
 
Last edited:
I have seen quite a few of the limited edition C200 on the bay 16x19 and 18x20. Has anyone had to chance to try either ?
 
Last edited:
swish41 said:
I really don't understand what dunlop is trying to do with these swingweights. It's basically unplayable at unstrung 270 yet after 1 years later they do the same thing.

I am not buying that "platform racket " bull$h1t because it's not. You can't have an entire line to customize racket.

I suspect dunlop deliberately trying to remove CX line by sobataging themselves
Click to expand...
Probably trying to make frames accessible to all levels of players. Although I'm not sure what a beginner would be doing with a 18x20
 
aaron_h27 said:
Probably trying to make frames accessible to all levels of players. Although I'm not sure what a beginner would be doing with a 18x20
Click to expand...
i picked up a cx 200 tour 18 x 20 and cx 200 98 at the end of 2023 after demoing them once they went on sale. i probably would have considered the 18 x 20 98 if it had been available. i think the 18 x 20 pattern would probably help cover some of the weaknesses of the 98 with some more stability
 
aaron_h27 said:
I'm still using the 16x19 2024 cx tour's. Weighted up to around 330 SW. Great frame that has a good control/power balance. I find it more powerful than the Vcore 95 line, yet enough control to still feel like a players frame. One handed top spin BH's are amazing as well as slices. Great for an all arounder who wants a modern playing frame with classic feel. The spin potential is actually very good and I always forget that I'm playing with a 95 because you can really make kick serves and top spin shots dance around the court. I don't find that it struggles that much in defensive situations because it has really good spin potential and it's pretty forgiving too. I wouldn't play it in stock form but leaded up it's really good.

I'm wondering how the Pro Staff 97 would compare to it but I'm pretty happy with my current set up and don't want to try anything at the moment.

The launch angle is just chef's kiss for me personally as it's not too closed and not too open. My forehand is very spinny and I like to hit a lot of penetrating slices on my backhand side so I feel like this frame works really well for that. I found the SV 95 launch angle to be a bit lower, less spinny and also the 2022 Ezone 98 to have less spin potential than the 2024 cx tour 16x19.
Click to expand...
Finally got to hit my 18x20 200 tour and I agree with your assessment. The 95 head size makes the frame special. I almost always play with 16x19 but went 18x20 this time. It’s pretty incredible how much spin I can get with it and my serve and forehand are very heavy considering it’s an old school 95.

I also find it very forgiving. Some balls I thought i was going to roll into the net still gave me some free clearance. Just an incredibly fun frame that actually seems viable for competitive play. It definitely needs lead which is probably why it has not caught on as well as it should.

Be interested in how people like this new 18x20 98 version, although I do think the 95 provides a ton of benefits without much downside.
 
My one critique of the CX 200 tour 16x19 is that it's not the best on volleys (they can sail on you occasionally) and strings don't last that long. Which is to be expected with the more open pattern. I'm not sure I'd want to give up my kick serves and topspin groundstrokes for a slightly more precise volley? So I'm ok with the trade off! I wonder if the Pro Staff 97 also has this issue.
 
aaron_h27 said:
My one critique of the CX 200 tour 16x19 is that it's not the best on volleys (they can sail on you occasionally) and strings don't last that long. Which is to be expected with the more open pattern. I'm not sure I'd want to give up my kick serves and topspin groundstrokes for a slightly more precise volley? So I'm ok with the trade off! I wonder if the Pro Staff 97 also has this issue.
Click to expand...

I say this as 4.0 myself and am just as guilty as everyone else of this specific issue. I do think we assign a lot of issues to rackets that should not be.

These "issues" should be assigned to players, their technique, their ego, their preconceived notions/biases, what they read recently and most importantly - I think - lack of familiarity/adjustment with racket and string setup.

I am at a point in my "racket journey" where given 3 to 5 to 7 (depending on how different it is from my current main setup) interations of string/weight setups I can make almost any racket work well for me. But that doesn't mean I am willing to either.
 
thenewbig3 said:
I say this as 4.0 myself and am just as guilty as everyone else of this specific issue. I do think we assign a lot of issues to rackets that should not be.

These "issues" should be assigned to players, their technique, their ego, their preconceived notions/biases, what they read recently and most importantly - I think - lack of familiarity/adjustment with racket and string setup.

I am at a point in my "racket journey" where given 3 to 5 to 7 (depending on how different it is from my current main setup) interations of string/weight setups I can make almost any racket work well for me. But that doesn't mean I am willing to either.
Click to expand...
I think you are taking the word "issue" too literally and perhaps I used it out of context. It's not really an issue, more so a trade off so to speak for myself and my technique. Of course at the end of the day you can read what's posted here but have to go on court and try things for yourself. I wasn't trying to universally say that this racket is bad at this specific thing because that's player dependent. I'm only speaking for myself. Hope that's clear.

As far as making a bunch of rackets work, that's not my forte. If I don't like a racket I simply don't play with it and use something else more suited for me. It's seems silly to play with something you don't enjoy just to "make it work". If finances are a concern that's one thing but I love maximizing enjoyment and winning on the court.
 
aaron_h27 said:
I think you are taking the word "issue" too literally and perhaps I used it out of context. It's not really an issue, more so a trade off so to speak for myself and my technique. Of course at the end of the day you can read what's posted here but have to go on court and try things for yourself. I wasn't trying to universally say that this racket is bad at this specific thing because that's player dependent. I'm only speaking for myself. Hope that's clear.

As far as making a bunch of rackets work, that's not my forte. If I don't like a racket I simply don't play with it and use something else more suited for me. It's seems silly to play with something you don't enjoy just to "make it work". If finances are a concern that's one thing but I love maximizing enjoyment and winning on the court.
Click to expand...
i could probably make the racquet work by playing with thicker and tighter strings but i just stuck with the 18 x 20 and more powerful strings since i’m playing more doubles nowadays. i really was firmly in the “racquet doesn’t matter” camp for most of my life but after trying both the wilson ultra 18 20 and 16 19 i began to understand the tradeoffs you mentioned.
 
aaron_h27 said:
I think you are taking the word "issue" too literally and perhaps I used it out of context. It's not really an issue, more so a trade off so to speak for myself and my technique. Of course at the end of the day you can read what's posted here but have to go on court and try things for yourself. I wasn't trying to universally say that this racket is bad at this specific thing because that's player dependent. I'm only speaking for myself. Hope that's clear.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you mean

Apologies if that sounded like I was ragging on you specifically. It was just a general observation and I included myself in that.

aaron_h27 said:
As far as making a bunch of rackets work, that's not my forte. If I don't like a racket I simply don't play with it and use something else more suited for me. It's seems silly to play with something you don't enjoy just to "make it work". If finances are a concern that's one thing but I love maximizing enjoyment and winning on the court.
Click to expand...

I was not trying to say you should I was just trying to indicate that with effort rackets can be made to work which would also mean that it will immediately fit some but not all people.
 
grungebob said:
i could probably make the racquet work by playing with thicker and tighter strings but i just stuck with the 18 x 20 and more powerful strings since i’m playing more doubles nowadays. i really was firmly in the “racquet doesn’t matter” camp for most of my life but after trying both the wilson ultra 18 20 and 16 19 i began to understand the tradeoffs you mentioned.
Click to expand...
Yeah for me personally I think it's a waste of time trying to change the identity of a racket. I see posts all the time of how to tame a spin racket by using 15 gauge strings and for me I just wonder why they wouldn't want to use a racket more suited for flatter hitting. To each their own lol.
 
thenewbig3 said:
I know exactly what you mean

Apologies if that sounded like I was ragging on you specifically. It was just a general observation and I included myself in that.



I was not trying to say you should I was just trying to indicate that with effort rackets can be made to work which would also mean that it will immediately fit some but not all people.
Click to expand...
There are definitely some "all-around" rackets that just work for pretty much any player with some minor tweaks (The blade 98 comes to mind) but there are also rackets with distinct personalities that do a few things really well. I find players like it when the racket compliments their natural gamestyle and not the other way around. I give a lot of racket recommendations to friends and teammates and this seems to work well.
 
Last edited:
aaron_h27 said:
Yeah for me personally I think it's a waste of time trying to change the identity of a racket. I see posts all the time of how to tame a spin racket by using 15 gauge strings and for me I just wonder why they wouldn't want to use a racket more suited for flatter hitting. To each their own lol.
Click to expand...
for a long time for me i was just making the prince graphite work (by putting in 15 gauge strings in) cause it was affordable and i still played well with it. i used it all the way up through 2021.
what other racquet from 1980 could i still play 5.0 tennis with in 2020?
 
I think we're all in search of that holy grail but, for most of us mortals, it doesn't exist. Personally, I think the best that we can do is find a racquet that "feels" the best to us (meaning that it checks off most of our boxes) then fine tune with strings. To @aaron_h27 point, it's much harder to force strings on something that just doesn't feel good/right.
 
ngoster said:
I think we're all in search of that holy grail but, for most of us mortals, it doesn't exist. Personally, I think the best that we can do is find a racquet that "feels" the best to us (meaning that it checks off most of our boxes) then fine tune with strings. To @aaron_h27 point, it's much harder to force strings on something that just doesn't feel good/right.
Click to expand...
once you’re dealing with racquets in the “middle of the range” zone (i.e. nothing super extreme like below or below 90 sq in or 110 sq in respectively) , string changes can a lot more than a racquet will in my opinion.
 
i’m still using the 2021 18 x 20 and i really am consistently impressed with how good the feel is. do people think the later version has better feel? my understanding is that it’s stiffer
 
My gamer is a leaded up 2021 16*19. At the 4.0 level where I haven't encountered too many players that will push me around, I absolutely love it. From trading groundstrokes to hitting volleys at net, it just does everything right. Sometimes I like to play with the 2019 18*20 to make the 16*19 feel that much easier to play with or when my game declines and I start to spray the ball with the 16*19.
 
Any comparison between the 2018/2019 (black-red) CX200 tour 16x19 and the current version? Picked up a cheap one on **** and love it, unsure whether it is worth the upgrade?
 
thenewbig3 said:
I say this as 4.0 myself and am just as guilty as everyone else of this specific issue. I do think we assign a lot of issues to rackets that should not be.

These "issues" should be assigned to players, their technique, their ego, their preconceived notions/biases, what they read recently and most importantly - I think - lack of familiarity/adjustment with racket and string setup.

I am at a point in my "racket journey" where given 3 to 5 to 7 (depending on how different it is from my current main setup) interations of string/weight setups I can make almost any racket work well for me. But that doesn't mean I am willing to either.
Click to expand...
100% in agreement about recreational players blaming the racquet in stead of putting more work_practice where we believe the racquet is to be blamed of.
 
mozzer said:
Any comparison between the 2018/2019 (black-red) CX200 tour 16x19 and the current version? Picked up a cheap one on **** and love it, unsure whether it is worth the upgrade?
Click to expand...
More feel in my opinion. I tried and had all after the CX revo 2.0. I believe the latest has recovered some of the outstanding features of that version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tennis347
Dunlop CX 200 2021
Replies
33
Views
5K
ericykchan
ericykchan
G
Any news about 2023 Dunlop CX 200?
Replies
46
Views
8K
langley
langley
G
New DUNLOP CX Silo for 2025
Replies
20
Views
3K
GN-001
G
H
Dunlop CX line grip sizing
Replies
14
Views
2K
tacotanium
tacotanium
stav_babolat
Dunlop CX 400Tr vs Head Speed MP (older models)
Replies
8
Views
1K
elliottsanhueza
E
Back
Top