Make the real thing Instead of platform options!W

Crocodile

Crocodile

G.O.A.T.
Currently we are seeing quite a few thin beamed platform frames on the market. Some of the more notable ones are:
1. Tecnifibre T Fight DC 315
2. Wilson Ultra Tour
3. Prince phantom 100P
4. Volkl V Sense 10 Tour
5. Dunlop Srixon Revo CX 2.0 Tour
While I can understand why companies are doing this and many people like to customise by adding lead all over the frame and adding leather grips, I personally don't like to do this especially when I have, say 3 racquets to do. Then you have a racquet like the Ultra Tour where the swingweights are all different between the frames you start off with. Removing the synthetic grip and adding a leather one can also change the comfort level quite dramatically as well.
If companies want to label a racquet "Tour" or "Pro" then they should be a minimum of 320 to 325g stock, otherwise drop the "tour" name. The Dunlop Srixon in particular is one frame I would buy if it wasn't so light. As a consequence the frames that I'm looking at are the Yonex V Pro 330, a Volkl C 10 Pro and SG mid 330, PK Q Tour and Redondo and Angell TC 330, as these are closer to what I would expect to be labelled as a "tour" racquet.
Your thoughts!
 
Crocodile said:
While I can understand why companies are doing this and many people like to customise by adding lead all over the frame and adding leather grips, I personally don't like to do this especially when I have, say 3 racquets to do. Then you have a racquet like the Ultra Tour where the swingweights are all different between the frames you start off with. Removing the synthetic grip and adding a leather one can also change the comfort level quite dramatically as well.
If companies want to label a racquet "Tour" or "Pro" then they should be a minimum of 320 to 325g stock, otherwise drop the "tour" name. The Dunlop Srixon in particular is one frame I would buy if it wasn't so light. As a consequence the frames that I'm looking at are the Yonex V Pro 330, a Volkl C 10 Pro and SG mid 330, PK Q Tour and Redondo and Angell TC 330, as these are closer to what I would expect to be labelled as a "tour" racquet.
Your thoughts!
Click to expand...

My thought is you've demonstrated well here that there are racquets available for everyone, lighter ones which is what most of the market seems to want, and some heavier ones for you. As you said, "I can understand why companies are doing this"
 
Last edited:
Well, if they did as you said, that would target a very small percentage of players, and the quality control would mean that players would need lead tape anyways, which would add even more weight. That or better qc, meaning increased price. I like this because you can match and customize racquets at the same time.
 
I don't know if I'd consider the Phantom Pro 100P a platform racquet. Mine is 11.9 oz strung with an overgrip and dampener!
 
All "good" rackets should come with no applied grip or buttcap (these items should come in a bag attached to the racket) and come in 28" or 29" "raw" length.
 
Thinner Beams mean more flex..
Thicker Beams mean stiff frames..
Pick your frame that plays the best of your game...

I have always been thin beam bias for my game...
Yes it is a good sign that thin beams are selling.

But the courts, I am still seeing lots of players with those thick puppies, both light weights and up...

Now also naturally you don't see a lot of Beginners and up to Intermediate playing with a thin beamer....
 
Crocodile said:
Currently we are seeing quite a few thin beamed platform frames on the market. Some of the more notable ones are:
1. Tecnifibre T Fight DC 315
2. Wilson Ultra Tour
3. Prince phantom 100P
4. Volkl V Sense 10 Tour
5. Dunlop Srixon Revo CX 2.0 Tour
While I can understand why companies are doing this and many people like to customise by adding lead all over the frame and adding leather grips, I personally don't like to do this especially when I have, say 3 racquets to do. Then you have a racquet like the Ultra Tour where the swingweights are all different between the frames you start off with. Removing the synthetic grip and adding a leather one can also change the comfort level quite dramatically as well.
If companies want to label a racquet "Tour" or "Pro" then they should be a minimum of 320 to 325g stock, otherwise drop the "tour" name. The Dunlop Srixon in particular is one frame I would buy if it wasn't so light. As a consequence the frames that I'm looking at are the Yonex V Pro 330, a Volkl C 10 Pro and SG mid 330, PK Q Tour and Redondo and Angell TC 330, as these are closer to what I would expect to be labelled as a "tour" racquet.
Your thoughts!
Click to expand...

I'm all about Old School and tend to agree with you to a large extent. I would have a seriously difficult time finding a contemporary racquet to fit my game nowadays I believe. First of all there's the weight issue - I honestly believe that young players are being pushed in the wrong direction on this topic. I believe that proper technique is easier to learn and maintain on a weightier frame and the heavier frame is generally better on the arm as well. And don't get me started on bio-feedback grips, adjustable pallet grips etc., etc. All I read on here is about cracked frames after a few years, or racquets losing their power over time. Built in obsolescence people, just like guitars, the original old stuff was the best.
 
I always thought Tour meant light same with Asian version.
If you can't find a decent 95+ racquet today your an outlier. If you want a 90 your screwed. There aren't may heavy racquets as a responce to market forces. I use them and are an outlier. Today's game is more about RHS than inertia.
My game is built on inertia, I use my bodies gravitational pull to bring the ball to me rather than go to the ball.
PS: Nearly all racquets need modification. Only racquet I wouldn't mod is PG 5G PSE. My RF97 needs lead at 12.
 
DanS said:
I don't know if I'd consider the Phantom Pro 100P a platform racquet. Mine is 11.9 oz strung with an overgrip and dampener!
Click to expand...
It's only saving grace is its 329 SW, which I do like. The others like the UT can be anywhere. I had one that I was testing that had a strung SW of 305 (14 points lower than the 319 advertised SW).
 
travlerajm said:
Love the trend toward platform options. I hate it when I get a new racquet and find out that I can’t reach my target spec due to too much mass in the wrong spot on the frame.
Click to expand...
A nice traditionally balanced headlight frame should be easier to customise I hope, but can appreciate your point.
 
Crocodile said:
It's only saving grace is its 329 SW, which I do like. The others like the UT can be anywhere. I had one that I was testing that had a strung SW of 305 (14 points lower than the 319 advertised SW).
Click to expand...

You're right... The UT's and Wilson racquets in general are all over the place.
 
T
CopolyX said:
Thinner Beams mean more flex..
Thicker Beams mean stiff frames..
Pick your frame that plays the best of your game...

I have always been thin beam bias for my game...
Yes it is a good sign that thin beams are selling.

But the courts, I am still seeing lots of players with those thick puppies, both light weights and up...

Now also naturally you don't see a lot of Beginners and up to Intermediate playing with a thin beamer....
Click to expand...
Yep, thick beamed stiff frames with an almost even balance like a Volkl SG 7 295g I can understand the appeal, but thin beamed low RA frames that are too light don't work for me, it needs to be a heavy puppy for it to have impact. I guess it may explain why a 9 series Volkl has struggled in the last few iterations.
 
Crocodile said:
Currently we are seeing quite a few thin beamed platform frames on the market. Some of the more notable ones are:
1. Tecnifibre T Fight DC 315
2. Wilson Ultra Tour
3. Prince phantom 100P
4. Volkl V Sense 10 Tour
5. Dunlop Srixon Revo CX 2.0 Tour
While I can understand why companies are doing this and many people like to customise by adding lead all over the frame and adding leather grips, I personally don't like to do this especially when I have, say 3 racquets to do. Then you have a racquet like the Ultra Tour where the swingweights are all different between the frames you start off with. Removing the synthetic grip and adding a leather one can also change the comfort level quite dramatically as well.
If companies want to label a racquet "Tour" or "Pro" then they should be a minimum of 320 to 325g stock, otherwise drop the "tour" name. The Dunlop Srixon in particular is one frame I would buy if it wasn't so light. As a consequence the frames that I'm looking at are the Yonex V Pro 330, a Volkl C 10 Pro and SG mid 330, PK Q Tour and Redondo and Angell TC 330, as these are closer to what I would expect to be labelled as a "tour" racquet.
Your thoughts!
Click to expand...
I agree. Each of the companies, especially Head and Wilson should offer Murray And Djokovic Autographs which are Tour racquets. They wouldn’t have to be ungodly heavy, but could be somewhere around 11.5-11.7 unstrung.
 
TennisHound said:
I agree. Each of the companies, especially Head and Wilson should offer Murray And Djokovic Autographs which are Tour racquets. They wouldn’t have to be ungodly heavy, but could be somewhere around 11.5-11.7 unstrung.
Click to expand...
Yes there are so many light toys available. You would think they could release just one model per brand in limited quantities that advanced player can snap up who don't have access to pro stock frames but would like those specs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J011yroger
The 2018 Jolly video review thread.
16 17 18
Replies
878
Views
94K
J011yroger
J011yroger
B
Platform Racquets
Replies
19
Views
3K
Daniel Andrade
D
TennisHound
Platform racquets
Replies
2
Views
557
BallBasher247
B
Crocodile
$249 v $169
Replies
14
Views
2K
CopolyX
CopolyX
F
  • Poll Poll
Racquet Decisions (300G vs MG Radical MP)
Replies
4
Views
1K
LeeD
L
Back
Top