I'm approaching the 6 month mark with the 2024 cx 200 tour 16x19. My record in league matches is 7W-1L since switching. The one loss I did have was 6-7, 4-6 after coming back from a 2 week vacation so even that one was winnable. Haven't dropped any sets in my wins either. I really just love this frame so much. Anyone still hitting with them? I'm so glad I tried it. It's such a forgivable players frame. I think it's much better than any of the Vcore 95 iterations although it plays kind of similarly to the SV95 with a bit more spin potential and forgiveness.
Dunlop CX 2024 line
- Thread starter Notorious_Junkballer
- Start date
Yes!! I agree
langley
Hall of Fame
I have the 18x20 previous generation but yeah, either that or prestige tour is the current best on the market imo. vcore 95 is a shank machine! (at least in my hands)
ngoster
Semi-Pro
My 2021 16*19T is still my gamer.
I played a few league matches with the Tour 16x19. It's fantastic when hitting big but I had to be on it to play my best. Great to serve with.
I agree. I'm a fan of the more rounded head shape.
@Trip I need your expertise.
I'm really liking the 2024 CX 200 Tour 16x19 and gonna stick with it for a bit, it's my favorite racket at the moment. My worry with 95's is that they can be discontinued at any moment or if I ever were to lose a step, is my next progression the CX 200 for something that plays very similar? I didn't like the Pro Staff v14 because the recoil weight was too high and I didn't care for the denser string pattern/string mapping. I was also looking at the Ultra Pro v4 16x19 with nearly identical specs as the 2024 CX 200 Tour 16x19 but don't know how open the string spacing is. I would also consider the Blade 98 16x19 but I don't really care for denser 16x19 string patterns however I'm open to trying it if the spin potential is similar.
I want a controlled, spin friendly (16x19 or 16x20), players frame with a recoil weight around ~150-154 so I can spec it up to 160 after modifications. I prefer a beam around 21mm.
I'm really liking the 2024 CX 200 Tour 16x19 and gonna stick with it for a bit, it's my favorite racket at the moment. My worry with 95's is that they can be discontinued at any moment or if I ever were to lose a step, is my next progression the CX 200 for something that plays very similar? I didn't like the Pro Staff v14 because the recoil weight was too high and I didn't care for the denser string pattern/string mapping. I was also looking at the Ultra Pro v4 16x19 with nearly identical specs as the 2024 CX 200 Tour 16x19 but don't know how open the string spacing is. I would also consider the Blade 98 16x19 but I don't really care for denser 16x19 string patterns however I'm open to trying it if the spin potential is similar.
I want a controlled, spin friendly (16x19 or 16x20), players frame with a recoil weight around ~150-154 so I can spec it up to 160 after modifications. I prefer a beam around 21mm.
Last edited:
AgressiveBaseliner89
Rookie
@aaron_h27 Although I am not Trip, your need probably sounds like Wilson Python 98 16х20, doesn't it?
ngoster
Semi-Pro
I have a 2021 CX 200 Tour 16 and an Ultra Pro V2 16. Both are weighted up. There extra free power with the UP.
How is the string density with the UP? More open or more closed than the CX 200 tour?
@aaron_h27 - First off, I see the Tours continuing to be available for at least a good while longer, as the '24's had new molds and patterns, and Dunlop usually rides such a change for one or two refreshes, at minimum, so I think you're safe for at least 5-6 more years. As for you, though, yes, you'll certainly lose a step at some point (welcome to aging my dude!), which may or may not arrive earlier than the Tour going away.
As for maxing out easy playability in the meantime, I would start with string setup, which I can only presume you've tried to push to limit on playable sweet spot size and free pop, while retaining enough control. If you sense there could still be some ground to gain then, then I would certainly as much additional tweaking as you can until you arrive at the point of diminishing return. As for options, if I remember correctly, I think you're pretty knowledgeable in that realm, so I'll skip the diatribe for now. Beyond that, I also know you've probably got customization dialed in, but there might be some wiggle room there, too. Maybe peel off and/or relocate some weight. That said, I know the Tours really need a certain level of swing weight to play well enough, so there's probably only so much you can do there, too.
Beyond that, if you do feel the pull to keep peaking around at new frame possibilities, aside from an open-enough central cell sizing, what else are your non-negotiables? Mid-beam thinner than ___ mm? Flex stiffer than noodle territory? etc.? Because while I could riddle off a whole list of frames, it won't do much good if they're going to be patently against some other design aspect(s) that you tend to cling to.
Interested to look at this further, if you think it's worth it.
As for maxing out easy playability in the meantime, I would start with string setup, which I can only presume you've tried to push to limit on playable sweet spot size and free pop, while retaining enough control. If you sense there could still be some ground to gain then, then I would certainly as much additional tweaking as you can until you arrive at the point of diminishing return. As for options, if I remember correctly, I think you're pretty knowledgeable in that realm, so I'll skip the diatribe for now. Beyond that, I also know you've probably got customization dialed in, but there might be some wiggle room there, too. Maybe peel off and/or relocate some weight. That said, I know the Tours really need a certain level of swing weight to play well enough, so there's probably only so much you can do there, too.
Beyond that, if you do feel the pull to keep peaking around at new frame possibilities, aside from an open-enough central cell sizing, what else are your non-negotiables? Mid-beam thinner than ___ mm? Flex stiffer than noodle territory? etc.? Because while I could riddle off a whole list of frames, it won't do much good if they're going to be patently against some other design aspect(s) that you tend to cling to.
Interested to look at this further, if you think it's worth it.
Last edited:
Grafil Injection
Legend
The average cell size of the UT and CXT 18x20 are about the same, around 1.15cm2. The CXT 16x19 is fairly dense for that pattern, around 1.25cm2 average cell size. Not sure about the UP 16. In comparison a PA is 1.35cm2 and a PS97 is 1.475cm2.
ngoster
Semi-Pro
With the extra 2 sq in of hitting surface, the pattern is more open.
langley
Hall of Fame
the cx200 tour is a 2 main skip top and bottom whereas the ultra pro is a 2 main skip top 1 main skip bottom. i don’t have an ultra pro but i based on the comment above by @Grafil Injection i find it very believable that they are very close.
ngoster
Semi-Pro
Personally, the CX200T16 didn't require any weights to be playable, whereas, the UP was much more obvious with regards to being anemic. On one of my CX's, I only modded with tail-weight to adjust the BP. It doesn't have as much plow as my other one with weights at 2, 10 and butt cap but still match-playable. The shots that the stock UP produced had more action than the CX200T16 but went nowhere (absolutely no penetration) through the court. Once weighted up to personal preference, it hits like a dream with the swing path feeling buttery smooth and fluid. The downside to that is that it gives up a bit of control that the smaller/tighter CX200T16 has. When I have periods where my swing is off (more pushy), I tend to revert back to the CX200T16.
Grafil Injection
Legend
Note that my comments were on the 18m versions, but I expect the 16m will be similar to each other too. And I measured the central 100 cells, i.e. where you should hit. What happens at the edges doesn't interest me.
Last edited:
langley
Hall of Fame
yep. it baffles me so many just take 16x19 or 18x20 at face value without counting the main skips (or mains in the throat). for example, the ezone 98 16x19 is tighter or close to some 18x20’s.
1. Yay awesome news! As far as string set-ups I'm using a soft poly in thin gauge (poly tour pro 1.20) at the lowest tension I can control. I like gut/poly but it's so expensive. I'm open to exploring more string options.
2. My non negotiables are
head size <= 98
recoil weight in stock form <= 154 (will spec up to 160 after mods)
beam width around 21mm (20mm is probably the thinnest I would go and 22 the thickest)
string pattern 16x19 with 3 throat main or 16x20
stiffness between 62-67
the Ultra Pro v4 16x19 checks off all my boxes I'm just worried that the string pattern might be too dense for spin generation. That's where the CX 200 might come in?
My customized specs generally end up being around this, with pretty much every racket.
~346g
~330 SW
~32.1 bal
~160 RW
On the full beds of poly, I'd recommend you give Gosen G-Tour 3 1.18 Yellow a try. It's like RPM 1.20 and PTP 1.20 had an ever more supple, better feeling, more powerful offspring. At half the cost. Hilarious. Outstanding, sleeper, killer of a co-poly.
As for hybrids, since you like gut/poly, I would highly encourage you grab a few sets of Prince Lightning Pro Silver, arguably the best multi-syn-gut-ester on the market, for all the reasons I've waxed on about in other threads, and start experimenting in combination with the most permanently-slick and controlled co-poly's, namely Toroline Wasabi-X and Snap Tour Black. Tensioned properly (if PLP is in the mains, enough tension to adequately spring-load it; if in the crosses, enough tension to turn it into a hard-enough "rail"), you might be able to find some sick playability combos there. I can help you with guidance there if needed.
Got it. Beyond those non-negotiables, if you're going to do this, to really make it pay off, I would also go for the highest amount of effective hitting area, ie. largest sweet spot and most effective ball off-center.
All of that factored in, the pickings are somewhat slim, but starting with mainstream options, here's where I'd look:
- Dunlop CX 200 + customization and thick strings - The natural progression, per your thoughts. Before you leave the flying D, you have to try it.
- Solinco WhiteOut 16x19 v2, 305 and 290, which may end up the better customization platform.
If you really don't want to leave any stones unturned and you're willing to make some flyer purchases, then Angell could be worth a try, specifically:
- Custom React 97 (at 300g and 315mm) - Hollow-core like what you're used to with the CX's, lower stock SW than the Touch, more full customization required; you might like the feel better.
- Custom Touch 97 (at 300g and 325mm) - Foam-filled, higher 295-ish stock SW, less hoop customizing required, just some handle weighting.
- K Seven 98 - If they've kept the K7's former Pro Staff -ish feel vibe going, this could also be a compelling try.
Caution:
- There are seemingly a lot of frames in this segment, but many (most?) of them have 8 throat mains, not 6 — and per your non-negotiables, that's a deal-killer.
- UPv4 - Possibly great, but also discontinued, so long-term supportability very likely puts you in an even worse spot than what you're worried about with the CX200T.
That should help steer you in the best direction for now, at least according to what it is you said are your must-haves. Hope that helps!
Last edited:
Ahh thank you so much, greatly appreciate you taking the time to respond and type this out. That string sounds right up my alley and similar to PTP 1.20. I'll have to try it out and report back.
Good point regarding the UPv4. I didn't know it was officially discontinued so I'll probably rule that one out. The only frame I really want to try this year is the 2026 Vcore 95 but I'm pretty much locked in with the CX 200 Tour 16x19.
Notorious_Junkballer
Hall of Fame
Okay, I have a CX 200 of the latest generation and I never learnt to like it. It was just too anemic and wobbly, no matter how much lead I added, which in turn made the overall weight too high for my liking. A slightest off-center hit made the frame wobble in my hand and the ball didn't go anywhere.
Now I gave it another chance. Stripped off all extra weight and extended it with 8-10mm in the handle. My god what a difference it made. Haven't measured the sw but it must be at least 15 points higher than before. However, the frame is still very maneuverable and feels light. I strung it with Racket Roots Classic 1.25 at 21kg and it feels wonderful. It still doesn't fancy off-center hits but the difference is like a night and a day. Just won a match with it. Gotta love the CX feeling!
Now I gave it another chance. Stripped off all extra weight and extended it with 8-10mm in the handle. My god what a difference it made. Haven't measured the sw but it must be at least 15 points higher than before. However, the frame is still very maneuverable and feels light. I strung it with Racket Roots Classic 1.25 at 21kg and it feels wonderful. It still doesn't fancy off-center hits but the difference is like a night and a day. Just won a match with it. Gotta love the CX feeling!
People still praising 2019 cx200+ in different subs. Shame dunlop discontinued this racket
Notorious_Junkballer
Hall of Fame
I have one of those too but it's cumbersome for some reason, especially on forehand. Maybe because it's a whole half inch longer (vs my 8mm) and the sw is around 340. And I like the higher stiffness of the current version. Though the 200+ is listed as 65 RA but it feels flexier.
@Notorious_Junkballer - What's your take on the drill mapping of the '24 CX 200 (now with equalized cross spacing and more uniform cell sizing over more of the face)? I would guess more consistent behavior over more of the face, deeper ball bite and more ability to apply arc/spin than before versus the '21's and prior? Maybe a bit less precision, though? Any comments on any of that would be gold. TIA!
Notorious_Junkballer
Hall of Fame
I haven't played with the 24 version that much since I couldn't gel with at all before extending it but I'd say the directional control is at least as good, maybe because of the higher stiffness. And it has ample spin. The best kick serves I've ever managed, a lot better than with the FX500T. It's probably due to the whippiness and higher racket head speeds.
Love it N_J. Ty!
Did you end up getting the ultra 16 x 19? I actually switched to the cx 200 because the ultra 16 19 was too open and the ultra 18 20 was too dense.
No I did not. Still using the 2024 CX 200 Tour 16x19
Grafil Injection
Legend
Gravity Pro is bigger and feels noticeably harder to swing with higher SW, TW and balance. Probably the closest CX to a GPro would be the CX 200 OS or the old CX 200+.
ChanterRacquet
Professional
@Grafil Injection curious what your thinking is behind comparing the CX OS to a GPro?
The difference in weight alone, 290 g vs 315 g, is substantial. As is the head size, 105 vs 100. But I could be missing something.
@grungebob The CX series swing more easily than a GPro, even the 95” tour models. None are, imo, all that similar. You could look at the 200 Tour or maybe even 400 Tour for the closest matches, in different ways (weight and head size, respectively).
The difference in weight alone, 290 g vs 315 g, is substantial. As is the head size, 105 vs 100. But I could be missing something.
@grungebob The CX series swing more easily than a GPro, even the 95” tour models. None are, imo, all that similar. You could look at the 200 Tour or maybe even 400 Tour for the closest matches, in different ways (weight and head size, respectively).
Actually the closest to a GPro right now from a mold and pattern perspective would be the CX 200 18x20 Limited. That said, the 18x20 Ltd is going to be noticeably more firm in flex (IMHO a good thing) and weighting-wise, you'd need a decent amount of customization to bring the hitting weight, plow and static stability up to GPro levels. Probably several grams of lead at 9 & 3 + 12, or 10 & 2, and a few in the handle to counter balance (my favorite move there is removing Dunlop's rather paltry Viper Dry stock base grip (usually ~10-12g installed) and replacing it with, IMHO, the gold standard in synthetics: Gamma Hi-Tech, pulled tight; usually 16-20g installed).
That said, I can see why @Grafil Injection mentioned the 200 OS, as it would give you perhaps a slightly larger effective effective hitting area and of course more head size. But when you factor in drill pattern, stock weighting and overall behavior, I think the 98 18x20 gets you a tad closer to the GPro, when all is said and done.
That said, I can see why @Grafil Injection mentioned the 200 OS, as it would give you perhaps a slightly larger effective effective hitting area and of course more head size. But when you factor in drill pattern, stock weighting and overall behavior, I think the 98 18x20 gets you a tad closer to the GPro, when all is said and done.
Last edited:
Grafil Injection
Legend
Yeah, as Trip said none of the CXs are really similar to a GPro, but what I was leaning towards is that the GPro feels like a large lump of a racket to swing, so certainly nothing like a 200 Tour, and more like one of the larger CXs. The 200 OS also has lowish flex like the GPro, so it might hit similarly to a GPro with around 15-20g of customisation, as TW reviewers also mentioned at the time. The old CX 200+ is probably closest in terms of stock SWs.
Last edited:
ChanterRacquet
Professional
Got it, so I wasn’t missing anything.
for me i liked head hawk touch a lot in the cx 200 18 x 20. head hawk power has been ok.
Notorious_Junkballer
Hall of Fame
My tentacles feel that the upcoming 2027 line won't have any 95s left.
There's a 2027 line coming?
Notorious_Junkballer
Hall of Fame
Yes, probably by the Aussie Open
Hi All,
Thank you for all the great information that you guys share in here; it helps people like me a lot.
I am a pretty decent player, with a good serve and a good forehand (at least according to my club mates). Probably a 4.5, if we quantify like that. I currently use a Head Gravity Pro and like that racket. It plays predictably. First serves are good, nice forehand drives, lovely slices and solid all around. I previously used the Speed MP for a few years but gravitated towards the Gravity Pro for better control, as the MP could be a little less precise. The issue I face after playing with the Pro for a few years is that, first of all, I am getting older (54 soon), and secondly, our club has laid new courts which are probably the slowest hard courts on the planet! The beautiful flat shots of the Pro just get held up and don’t go anywhere. I tried the Speed MP again, but after the Gravity Pro it feels and sounds so tinny and hollow! So I was thinking of trying an easier but solid racket, one that would give more height and depth and a little more power but not be wild and tinny. The CX200 interested me; it has great reviews overall, but it may be a little demanding for a 54-year-old. Plus, all the reports of crazy low swing weight that would require quite a bit of added weight don't bode well. Then people advised me to go for the CX400 Tour. With great difficulty, I have managed to track down some in G3 size. Before I pull the trigger, I just thought I would ask this community about their thoughts on someone in my situation.
Thanks again
Fouad
Thank you for all the great information that you guys share in here; it helps people like me a lot.
I am a pretty decent player, with a good serve and a good forehand (at least according to my club mates). Probably a 4.5, if we quantify like that. I currently use a Head Gravity Pro and like that racket. It plays predictably. First serves are good, nice forehand drives, lovely slices and solid all around. I previously used the Speed MP for a few years but gravitated towards the Gravity Pro for better control, as the MP could be a little less precise. The issue I face after playing with the Pro for a few years is that, first of all, I am getting older (54 soon), and secondly, our club has laid new courts which are probably the slowest hard courts on the planet! The beautiful flat shots of the Pro just get held up and don’t go anywhere. I tried the Speed MP again, but after the Gravity Pro it feels and sounds so tinny and hollow! So I was thinking of trying an easier but solid racket, one that would give more height and depth and a little more power but not be wild and tinny. The CX200 interested me; it has great reviews overall, but it may be a little demanding for a 54-year-old. Plus, all the reports of crazy low swing weight that would require quite a bit of added weight don't bode well. Then people advised me to go for the CX400 Tour. With great difficulty, I have managed to track down some in G3 size. Before I pull the trigger, I just thought I would ask this community about their thoughts on someone in my situation.
Thanks again
Fouad
jimdontcare
Professional
CX 400 Tour is a nice alternative to the Speed MP. Much better feel imo. It’s definitely firmer feeling in nature, so that would be a bit of an adjustment from the Speed MP and much softer Gravity Pro. Up to you whether you’ll miss the softness. Ease of spin will be between the two.
Thanks for the reply. Your experience really helps.
Yes, the stiffness rating is higher than the Head rackets, whether it's too jarring or not, I guess I'll have to find out. I have heard that despite the higher rating, it does play quite comfortably, so that's what I am hoping for. Definitely don't want, or need, a frame that would hurt my elbow, etc.
Basically, I think, I'm looking for a frame that can help me when I'm not that fresh and dialed in, but still offers a degree of control.
Thanks again,
Fouad.
Yes, the stiffness rating is higher than the Head rackets, whether it's too jarring or not, I guess I'll have to find out. I have heard that despite the higher rating, it does play quite comfortably, so that's what I am hoping for. Definitely don't want, or need, a frame that would hurt my elbow, etc.
Basically, I think, I'm looking for a frame that can help me when I'm not that fresh and dialed in, but still offers a degree of control.
Thanks again,
Fouad.
jimdontcare
Professional
CX 400 Tour is definitely a good place to look. I don't think it's uncomfortable, but even besides the comfort issue, the ball just comes off a little differently on stiffer racquets. It's no Babolat or anything, it's just something I noticed when I tried it directly after trying the Speed MP. I prefer it personally. If you don't end up liking it, you could try looking at the Blade 100 (the regular one). Definitely lower power than a Speed MP but definitely two steps up in ease of use compared to the Gravity Pro, while still being on the softer end of things.
anfield
Semi-Pro
The 400T is not as stiff as the numbers say, at all. Dunlop has some next-gen vibration/stabilizer tech that makes it very comfortable. The racket also has very nice dwell and a uniform flex. It pockets the ball for sure.
On paper the Precept 100 is very similar stick, but does not flex anywhere as much, the throat is very stiff, and shoots off the racket face. Even though they are both, 100" 23mm box beam in the 66 RA range, the Yonex feels more like a tweener. The 400T feels like a player's frame with a bit of help.
Great insight, thanks. Sounds great. I'm waiting for the shop to get back to me before I place the order. I asked them that I want an "on spec" racket and not something with a crazy high or crazy low swing weight.
anfield
Semi-Pro
For sure, I have demoed the 400T multiple times. The one I have now is 305g at 33.2 cm unstrung, it's a club. Others were more normal and much preferred. I play with the CX 200 and the 400T just makes things easier and almost feels as good. No need to tinker with tape to make it stable, just over grip it and rip it.
Also, has anyone heard any rumors of a CX update? If they just made the 200 98 more stable it's a perfect stick.
I started off with trying to buy the CX200, couldn't find many in stock in G3. Plus, almost no one was able to provide the specs of the rackets they held in stock. Given the swing weight lottery, I started to look towards the 400T, which like you said, makes things easier while feeling good .
Notorious_Junkballer
Hall of Fame
There will be a new line in early -27, probably presented in late -26. So the current line will probably be on sale in the fall.
