Dunlop CX200 2021?

topspn

Legend
Received a set of demos yesterday from TW. Rotated CX 200 Tour, CX200, CX 400 Tour playing about 4 hours. I liked the feel of the CX 200 Tour, the free power of the CX 400 Tour, but the head size of the CX 200. All of the sticks had 1 thing in common though: they were very plush feeling. Definitely didnt feel any arm or wrist pain after the hitting session. Unfortunately the only option for demo is the multi that is already in it, which is the Dunlop Iconic All 17G, a string I have never heard of. It would have been more interesting to try it with a soft co poly which i normally use.
Quickly restring ;)
 
Received a set of demos yesterday from TW. Rotated CX 200 Tour, CX200, CX 400 Tour playing about 4 hours. I liked the feel of the CX 200 Tour, the free power of the CX 400 Tour, but the head size of the CX 200. All of the sticks had 1 thing in common though: they were very plush feeling. Definitely didnt feel any arm or wrist pain after the hitting session. Unfortunately the only option for demo is the multi that is already in it, which is the Dunlop Iconic All 17G, a string I have never heard of. It would have been more interesting to try it with a soft co poly which i normally use.
I've previously used the Tour versions but would like a bit more free power and forgivness. So I'm thinking of the regular cx200. On the other hand, the 400 Tour sounds also interesting. Was that clearly the most powerful of the bunch?
 

408tennisguy

Semi-Pro
The CX400 Tour definitely felt more powerful,it could also be because of the slightly thicker beam and higher RA compared to the CX 200
 

408tennisguy

Semi-Pro
putting them side to side, as far as head size, there is not a significant difference in width(looking at the face of the racquet) because it looks like the shape is more elongated (think more oval, or teardrop like) instead of round. id say go for the CX400 tour
 
putting them side to side, as far as head size, there is not a significant difference in width(looking at the face of the racquet) because it looks like the shape is more elongated (think more oval, or teardrop like) instead of round. id say go for the CX400 tour
It still has decent control and feel?
 

topspn

Legend
I would, and I could (because I string my own sticks), however I dont want to break any kind of demo rules to discourage TW from allowing me to demo in the future.
I have never seen anything that says you can’t. I have restrung demos and its no issue. Its not like you destroyed the racquet.
 
yep. not as much feel as the 95 but still has good control
Is it a lot more powerful? Without having tried it, it feels somehow a bit displaced in the control line of raqcuets just by looking at the specs. :unsure: I was interested in the FX500 but could this be a good alternative, as I'm coming from control racquets.
 

408tennisguy

Semi-Pro
best thing to do is to demo it. dunlop having a promo where you get 3 racquets to demo for free, thats why i have them. i demoed the FX line and I wasnt impressed with it. Comparing the FX 500 vs The CX 400 Tour, the CX 400 Tour has more free power, more comfortable (lower flex rating) and more manueverable (thinner and straight beam). The FX 500 is more comparable to the new Babolat pure drive
 

etd

Rookie
I have 3 Dunlop CX Demos out as part of the free program - the CX 200 18X20 Tour, CX 200, and CX 400 Tour. They arrived on Friday, and were tested today for the first time.

My friend, who currently uses the Head IG Prestige Mid with Wilson NXT 17 strings, tried out the CX 200 Tour, and he liked it. The racquet was 0.2 ounces under spec at 11.5 ounces strung with the new Dunlop Iconic 17 string. He said he would need to add an overgrip and some Gamma head tape to it (but he is looking for something slightly lighter and more forgiving than his Prestige Mid). But otherwise, he was pleased with the CX 200 Tour, particularly on serves. He also said the racquet had good spin for the string pattern. He even liked the Dunlop Iconic string, and he is a die-hard NXT guy.

I tried out the regular CX200 and CX400 Tour. My CX200 was on spec at 11.4 ounces strung. My CX400 Tour was 0.2 ounces under spec at 11.0 ounces. Both are good racquets, but I ended up liking the CX400 Tour more as it was more lively and had more power on serve. I would like to try a CX400 Tour that is on spec. Both racquets are also comfortable, and the CX400 Tour doesn't feel as stiff as the older 400s from years ago. For reference, I use the Head Liquidmetal Instinct with Head Velocity 16. I think the Dunlop Iconic string plays like Head Velocity.

Hope to try these racquets out 1 more time this week before I have to send them back on Friday.
 

Vicious49

Professional
I went to check out the demos for the 200 tours but it looks like they are only available in L1 size. There’s no way I can make that work for me.
 
I am a 4+ish. I play with old CX 200 Tour 18x20. Just tested the new Tour 18x20 & 16x19 & the Non-Tour 98 16x19.
- The old Tour 18x20 has more bite to shots, I felt more control out of my existing racket (which has 2gms lead tape on the head to bump up the SW). But this one feels more arm friendly.
- The 16x19 feel more like a 98, very forgiving, easy to handle. Enough control for me to alter my play a bit - considering moving to this one. I need to add some lead tape to up the SW to continue testing.
- Non-Tour 16x19 this is no go for me, it's too much power, not enough control, too light, too thick beam to swing fast for me. Folks who like the Wilson blade, this could be an alternative & platform to customize.

It has the new Dunlop Iconic 17G multi string. I use HyperG usually around 52-ish lbs. So I can't say how stiffer polys are going to play.
From what I can tell, uses Dunlop Viper grip.
 
Last edited:

Vicious49

Professional
I've never owned a Dunlop racquet before. Do their grips run the same size as Wilson or are they slightly larger where it would make sense to go down 1 size?
 

time_fly

Hall of Fame
The best looking racquets on sale right now. That shade of red is simply orgasmic.
From video it looks like Mazda's canonical "Soul Red" paint, and that's a good thing. I ordered a demo of the CX 400 Tour which I will compare to my previous-generation CX 200. I was a playtester on that frame, and ended up adding lead and a leather grip.
 
I am a 4+ish. I play with old CX 200 Tour 18x20. Just tested the new Tour 18x20 & 16x19 & the Non-Tour 98 16x19.
- The old Tour 18x20 has more bite to shots, I felt more control out of my existing racket (which has 2gms lead tape on the head to bump up the SW). But this one feels more arm friendly.
- The 16x19 feel more like a 98, very forgiving, easy to handle. Enough control for me to alter my play a bit - considering moving to this one. I need to add some lead tape to up the SW to continue testing.
- Non-Tour 16x19 this is no go for me, it's too much power, not enough control, too light, too thick beam to swing fast for me. Folks who like the Wilson blade, this could be an alternative & platform to customize.

It has the new Dunlop Iconic 17G multi string. I think it's strung at 57lbs. I use HyperG usually around 52-ish lbs. So I can't say how stiffer polys are going to play.
From what I can tell, uses Dunlop Viper grip.
You should get to try the CX200 (98 non-Tour) with poly strings, for example with your Hyper-G. The power level will go down and the control will increase. And about your old CX 200 Tour having more bite than the new. I wonder if it isn't about the stings as well.
 

tata

Hall of Fame
Not sure if actually happening but I feel Dunlop is making in roads back into tennis. Lifetime Prince player and lately other brands like Dunlop, yonex and tecnifibre have my attention. Find myself browsing their frames. They just need to make a lot of noise with on successful frame and people will start seeing what else they can offer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ-

fed1

Professional
Not sure if actually happening but I feel Dunlop is making in roads back into tennis. Lifetime Prince player and lately other brands like Dunlop, yonex and tecnifibre have my attention. Find myself browsing their frames. They just need to make a lot of noise with on successful frame and people will start seeing what else they can offer.
Yonex is already established as a heavyweight and is either making a run at #3 in US market share over Head or they are already there. Dunlop and Tec have some great offerings but their market share is still pretty tiny. It's a tough battle for wall space.
 

tennis347

Professional
Just curious how the CX 200 new version compares to the Angell K7 Red since the specs are very similar. Anyone who has played with both could give me comparison in terms of power, control, feel, comfort and spin? Thanks !
 

time_fly

Hall of Fame
I’ve hit the CX 400 Tour a couple of times now and I’m underwhelmed. It’s strung with multi at what feels like a fairly high tension, which isn’t my preference, and that could be part of it. But my FX 500 demo from last week was also strung with multi and I still really liked it despite it not having my typical setup. The CX 400 Tour feels less substantial than the CX 200 Tour, and to me the frame feels dead and more stiff than I expected outside the sweet spot. Although it’s a CX, it still doesn’t really have the stability and flex of a top-notch control frame. Being a lightweight 100” it’s pretty easy to play, but I just didn’t find any advantages over the FX and similar frames in this spec range.
 

ryushen21

Hall of Fame
Yeah? What did you not like about them?
I'm only about 2 hours into it with the CX200 18x20. I got in on the TW playtest. But at the moment, it doesn't come across as anything special. Anemic swing weight, slightly unstable, etc. More details after I get more time on the courts with it.
 

cortado

Semi-Pro
I'm only about 2 hours into it with the CX200 18x20. I got in on the TW playtest. But at the moment, it doesn't come across as anything special. Anemic swing weight, slightly unstable, etc. More details after I get more time on the courts with it.
Seems like most brand's 'control' racquet comes with anaemic swing-weight. Why is it you can buy a Speed Pro with 330 swing-weight built in, but not a 200Tour18x20?
 
Seems like most brand's 'control' racquet comes with anaemic swing-weight. Why is it you can buy a Speed Pro with 330 swing-weight built in, but not a 200Tour18x20?
From what I can tell, Dunlop's one of the few whose control rackets are as far under-spec as they are. It's not really all that bad with them being under-weighted since they take weight very well (add around 5 grams of weight @ 3 and 9, and around 2 grams at 12, and you're good to go), but I don't see a clear benefit to Dunlop selling under-weight Tour rackets, especially without a pro stock line of specialty rackets like Wilson has, where it makes marketing sense to sell a pure platform stick like an Ultra Pro. What would be cool is if Dunlop made these CX200 Tour rackets (16M and 18M) either 315g/31.5cm balance/high 320s SW like the Prestige Pro or 320g/31.5cm balance/≥330 SW, while also selling them at 310 or 305 grams as "pro stock" style rackets.
 

cortado

Semi-Pro
From what I can tell, Dunlop's one of the few whose control rackets are as far under-spec as they are. It's not really all that bad with them being under-weighted since they take weight very well (add around 5 grams of weight @ 3 and 9, and around 2 grams at 12, and you're good to go), but I don't see a clear benefit to Dunlop selling under-weight Tour rackets, especially without a pro stock line of specialty rackets like Wilson has, where it makes marketing sense to sell a pure platform stick like an Ultra Pro. What would be cool is if Dunlop made these CX200 Tour rackets (16M and 18M) either 315g/31.5cm balance/high 320s SW like the Prestige Pro or 320g/31.5cm balance/≥330 SW, while also selling them at 310 or 305 grams as "pro stock" style rackets.
320g with 31.5cm balance and strung swing-weight 330 would be my ideal spec for it.
I suppose if I used racquet-matching to get one with factory spec of 318 swing-weight, I could add 4g at 11-1 region and get those specs.
 
320g with 31.5cm balance and strung swing-weight 330 would be my ideal spec for it.
I suppose if I used racquet-matching to get one with factory spec of 318 swing-weight, I could add 4g at 11-1 region and get those specs.
Agreed on the specs for sure.

You could do it that way, but personally I wouldn't recommend it; these rackets are too torsionally unstable without weight on the sides of the frame. I'd recommend at least 2 to 3 grams at 3 & 9 (total, not each side) to get a decent TW, but 4 to 6 grams would be more ideal to really expand the sweetspot, unless you prefer a lower TW. My 200 Tour 16x19 wasn't stable enough for me with 3g at 3&9 and 1g at 12 so I'll beef it up to 5g at 3&9, but then again, ever since using the Prince Phantom 100P some months ago, I've gotta have a high TW on my rackets. A good setup to try for this racket and most other 95-98 headsize rackets (the TennisNerd setup) would be 4g at 3&9 and 2g at 12; that'll give you a ~340-345g strung weight, low 330s SW, and a healthy TW without making the racket sluggish.
 

mtommer

Hall of Fame
A good setup to try for this racket and most other 95-98 headsize rackets (the TennisNerd setup) would be 4g at 3&9 and 2g at 12; that'll give you a ~340-345g strung weight, low 330s SW, and a healthy TW without making the racket sluggish.
I find 8g along the 3 and 9 side with 12 g in the handle makes the racquet play superb.
 
Um, yeah, it plays fine......(scratching head here). Is there a reason you think it wouldn't? It played alright stock and with less lead added too.
I think he was trying to get at how it's a lot to have to do to a racket to get it to play right, and they could've just made the thing with enough weight in the first place.
 

mtommer

Hall of Fame
I think he was trying to get at how it's a lot to have to do to a racket to get it to play right, and they could've just made the thing with enough weight in the first place.
Ah. Well, I see. It doesn't change the way racquet plays for me all that much. It just changes how it feels. So for example, off center hits, stock, feel jarring and "blah" to me. How I added the weight now makes those same off center hits feel waaayy more like hitting the sweetspot. The results are the same in that a ball hit into the net one way is still similarly hit into the net the weighted up way. But, it's a far better feeling shot into the net *shrug*
 
I demoed the 18x20 a couple weeks back and absolutely loved it. I am previously coming from a prostaff 95 BLX and will be making the switch to these sticks once I sell some of my old rackets to pay for them.

I was very disappointed when wilson updated the prostaff line for the 97 sq inch heads and felt that the newer pro staffs lost that classic feel that I had come to love. This cx 200 18x20 plays very close to that classic and pure pro staff feeling and is exactly what I had wanted the newer pro staffs to become, well done Dunlop! These rackets remind me very much of the old babolat pure storm LTDs which I played with years back when I was in high school. Solid static weight yet a much lower swing weight with superb feel. I honestly didn't think that the stability was much of an issue and loved the racket as is in stock form. I may over time add a very small amount of lead but not right away.

Let me know if you guys have any questions about my experience with this stick I'd be more than happy to answer!
 

cortado

Semi-Pro
I demoed the 18x20 a couple weeks back and absolutely loved it. I am previously coming from a prostaff 95 BLX and will be making the switch to these sticks once I sell some of my old rackets to pay for them.

I was very disappointed when wilson updated the prostaff line for the 97 sq inch heads and felt that the newer pro staffs lost that classic feel that I had come to love. This cx 200 18x20 plays very close to that classic and pure pro staff feeling and is exactly what I had wanted the newer pro staffs to become, well done Dunlop! These rackets remind me very much of the old babolat pure storm LTDs which I played with years back when I was in high school. Solid static weight yet a much lower swing weight with superb feel. I honestly didn't think that the stability was much of an issue and loved the racket as is in stock form. I may over time add a very small amount of lead but not right away.

Let me know if you guys have any questions about my experience with this stick I'd be more than happy to answer!
This racquet seems like Dunlop's version of a Wilson 6.1 95, or the Prestige MP when it was still 95 head.
I can't see why there isn't more hype for it here, given that this forum is obsessed with these kinds of frames.
 
Top