Modern racquet for 1hbh

Artanis

Semi-Pro
Except that he uses the Vcore 95D... but I know what you mean. They are both great for OHBHs (as are many of the Yonex racquets - 97HD, VCORE 95, RDiS 100 MP, Vcore 89, Ezone DR98, etc etc).
Uups, sorry, got confused by TW website.
Is there any VCORE 95D for sale...hard to get why it was discontinued...?
 
Last edited:

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
Uups, sorry, got confused by TW website.
Is there any VCORE 95D for sale...hard to get why it was discontinued...?
The Vcore 95D has not been for sale for many years... however, it can be found on second-hand selling sights.

I'm not sure why it was discontinued... probably to do with Yonex's product cycle of 2 years. It was replaced by the VCore Tour 97, and then the Vcore Tour G 330g (and subsequent Vcore Pro lines).

Stan endorses the VCore Pro 97 330g but has always played with the 95D which has been painted to look like subsequent models. Since Yonex changed their VCore Pro line to the 16x19 string pattern (and the 95D is 16x20), maybe the closest thing to Stan's racquet in the current lineup might be the VCORE 95 from 2018. However, if you want the real thing, you'll have to buy it second-hand.

Hope that helps.
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
The Vcore Tour 97 that replaced the 95 was an excellent racquet. Most people would benefit more from using that one over the 95D.

Never played with that one... but the flex rating was 66... and for that reason I ended up getting the VCore Tour G 330g. That one was excellent (although beefy), and I love many things about it. The Duel G was easier to manoeuvre and also felt very nice. My latest addition in this range was the 97HD, which after some modification, has become an absolute beast.

Hope the upcoming iteration gets even better. Great line of racquets.
 

25-TENNIS

Semi-Pro
Never played with that one... but the flex rating was 66... and for that reason I ended up getting the VCore Tour G 330g. That one was excellent (although beefy), and I love many things about it. The Duel G was easier to manoeuvre and also felt very nice. My latest addition in this range was the 97HD, which after some modification, has become an absolute beast.

Hope the upcoming iteration gets even better. Great line of racquets.
How is the feel of the VCP HD compared to the Tour G?
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
How is the feel of the VCP HD compared to the Tour G?
They are both very soft and muted (of course the type of strings you use will also play a part - soft Vs firm polys, etc). There is a difference in the balance and location of weight within the frame (my Tour G has lots of mass in the throat area, whereas my 97HD had lots of mass in the top half of the head but was easier to swing due to the difference in static weight). Therefore, quite different in feel in stock form. The Tour G, due to it's mass, had huge stability and produced massive amounts of power and weight-of-shot (as long as the action was smooth and relaxed), the 97HD was good but not excellent (hence why I modified it).

The launch angle of the Tour G was lower (but I'm not sure whether that was because it was an absolute tank, or just because of the denseness of the 16x20 string bed), but I didn't hit the net tape as much with it as I did with the 97HD (especially after my first modification). This lead me to continue to modify the 97HD, and after more tinkering it now had great control, excellent launch angle (no more unexpected shots that hit the top of the net tape), and awesome power.

I feel like the Tour G has a bit more feel off the string bed (slightly less muted - but it has been a while since I strung it up and it will also depend on the strings used - my Tour G came to me with fresh Solinco Tour Bite, while my 97HD I strung with Volkl Cyclone/ Weiss Cannon Explosiv), however, the placement of the mass within the frame, means that it requires ones full attention. Due to that, I feel that the way I set up my 97HD allows me to play with more flair and touch (the racquet is great on drop shots and change of pace), it's great on defence, and the transition from defence to offence. The Tour G, even though I like the feel when hitting the ball and it's stability, makes me feel like I have to be on the front foot from the very first point. I need to get on the attack and stay there in order to control the point. If I allow my opponent to get there first, the mass of the racquet (or at least it's distribution within the racquet) will work against me and make me feel like I'm a little on the back foot. I don't feel that with the 97HD. It allows me to better deal with the ebbs and flows of the point and pick my moments.

I will have to string them both with the same strings and tension and play them back-to-back one of these days. Too many racquets... too little time.

Hope that was helpful. Sorry for the long answer.
 

ryushen21

Legend
Not sure whether you've seen the video review of some of the current 95 by AC Tennis? I found it very interesting. Would be interested in your thoughts.

I only have experience with the 18x20 version of the CX200, the PT630, and the 6.1 95.

As far as the 6.1 95, I love it with leather and lead at 3/9. It drives up the static and swing weights, but the result is super stable and insane feel. However, it also results in a frame that is unwieldy for most and too demanding in the modern game. As much as I love full poly setups, gut/poly takes this frame to a whole different level. And when you have the right setup and lay into the ball, nothing puts the hurt on the ball like the 6.1 does. The nCode iteration of the 6.1 95 18x20 is one of my GOAT frames.

The CX200 Tour's biggest fault is its vagueness. I get that Dunlop was attempting to make the sweet spot more generous, but the result to me was a racquet with little feedback and limited connection to the ball. However, the grip shape and the butt cap flare are absolute perfection. Flawless referencing for both forehand and backhand grips. I would put that grip on any racquet.

The PT630 is a legend in its own right for so many reasons. It's the definition of plush and the inception of feel fetishism. Again, gut/poly is a must in this frame. If you want a pure joy hit, this is the frame.

My general thought on frames like this is that they are fine for a casual hit but, for the majority of players at least, are not beneficial to the competitive game. They all bring something unique and attractive to the table. They're fun to flirt with but not something you go long-term.
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
I only have experience with the 18x20 version of the CX200, the PT630, and the 6.1 95.

As far as the 6.1 95, I love it with leather and lead at 3/9. It drives up the static and swing weights, but the result is super stable and insane feel. However, it also results in a frame that is unwieldy for most and too demanding in the modern game. As much as I love full poly setups, gut/poly takes this frame to a whole different level. And when you have the right setup and lay into the ball, nothing puts the hurt on the ball like the 6.1 does. The nCode iteration of the 6.1 95 18x20 is one of my GOAT frames.

The CX200 Tour's biggest fault is its vagueness. I get that Dunlop was attempting to make the sweet spot more generous, but the result to me was a racquet with little feedback and limited connection to the ball. However, the grip shape and the butt cap flare are absolute perfection. Flawless referencing for both forehand and backhand grips. I would put that grip on any racquet.

The PT630 is a legend in its own right for so many reasons. It's the definition of plush and the inception of feel fetishism. Again, gut/poly is a must in this frame. If you want a pure joy hit, this is the frame.

My general thought on frames like this is that they are fine for a casual hit but, for the majority of players at least, are not beneficial to the competitive game. They all bring something unique and attractive to the table. They're fun to flirt with but not something you go long-term.
Thanks for your feedback. We agree on most things.

I haven't hit the Dunlop (as I have too many racquets already), the PT630 is fantastic and a legend (the PT 2.0 is just as good), the 6.1 95 I have in the Classic 16x18 and the 2014 18x20 (love them both)... and you're right, nothing puts the hurt on the ball quite like the 6.1 95 (it has one of the best balances and feels in hand of almost any racquet out there - just holding it in hand gives you the feeling you're holding something special). The VCORE 95 (2018) I haven't hit enough with, but it's already good... therefore, the more I hit it the better it will get. Finally, I have the G360+ PMP and not the Prestige Pro... but the PMP is a great racquet and Head has done a great job with it. I think in time it will become one of the "classic" Prestiges.

Your last paragraph... I think depends on what you're used to playing with and what the standard of the opponent you're facing is.

Cheers
 

ryushen21

Legend
Thanks for your feedback. We agree on most things.

I haven't hit the Dunlop (as I have too many racquets already), the PT630 is fantastic and a legend (the PT 2.0 is just as good), the 6.1 95 I have in the Classic 16x18 and the 2014 18x20 (love them both)... and you're right, nothing puts the hurt on the ball quite like the 6.1 95 (it has one of the best balances and feels in hand of almost any racquet out there - just holding it in hand gives you the feeling you're holding something special). The VCORE 95 (2018) I haven't hit enough with, but it's already good... therefore, the more I hit it the better it will get. Finally, I have the G360+ PMP and not the Prestige Pro... but the PMP is a great racquet and Head has done a great job with it. I think in time it will become one of the "classic" Prestiges.

Your last paragraph... I think depends on what you're used to playing with and what the standard of the opponent you're facing is.

Cheers
For sure, it depends on your level and your opponent. And at a certain skill level, a player can adapt to any racquet. When I came back to tennis, I was trying to stick to smaller head sizes with dense patterns since those were what I played with previously. But as I played more and understood my game and my opponent's games better, I had to explore alternatives.

Imagine my shock when I found myself playing my best tennis with 100 and a 16x19 pattern. But do I still take the nCode out for an occasion session? You bet I do.
 

surrealfx

New User
I use the 2016 Pure Aero Tour. I have loved the racket for pretty much everything, including one-handed topspin and slice backhands. I have used the racket for almost four years and am having a great time with it. I hope the six I have stay together for a long time to come. Good luck!
 

25-TENNIS

Semi-Pro
They are both very soft and muted (of course the type of strings you use will also play a part - soft Vs firm polys, etc). There is a difference in the balance and location of weight within the frame (my Tour G has lots of mass in the throat area, whereas my 97HD had lots of mass in the top half of the head but was easier to swing due to the difference in static weight). Therefore, quite different in feel in stock form. The Tour G, due to it's mass, had huge stability and produced massive amounts of power and weight-of-shot (as long as the action was smooth and relaxed), the 97HD was good but not excellent (hence why I modified it).

The launch angle of the Tour G was lower (but I'm not sure whether that was because it was an absolute tank, or just because of the denseness of the 16x20 string bed), but I didn't hit the net tape as much with it as I did with the 97HD (especially after my first modification). This lead me to continue to modify the 97HD, and after more tinkering it now had great control, excellent launch angle (no more unexpected shots that hit the top of the net tape), and awesome power.

I feel like the Tour G has a bit more feel off the string bed (slightly less muted - but it has been a while since I strung it up and it will also depend on the strings used - my Tour G came to me with fresh Solinco Tour Bite, while my 97HD I strung with Volkl Cyclone/ Weiss Cannon Explosiv), however, the placement of the mass within the frame, means that it requires ones full attention. Due to that, I feel that the way I set up my 97HD allows me to play with more flair and touch (the racquet is great on drop shots and change of pace), it's great on defence, and the transition from defence to offence. The Tour G, even though I like the feel when hitting the ball and it's stability, makes me feel like I have to be on the front foot from the very first point. I need to get on the attack and stay there in order to control the point. If I allow my opponent to get there first, the mass of the racquet (or at least it's distribution within the racquet) will work against me and make me feel like I'm a little on the back foot. I don't feel that with the 97HD. It allows me to better deal with the ebbs and flows of the point and pick my moments.

I will have to string them both with the same strings and tension and play them back-to-back one of these days. Too many racquets... too little time.

Hope that was helpful. Sorry for the long answer.
Thanks!
 

pico

Professional
The TF40 315 was top of my list for my 1HBH also. I did find it a tad too unwieldy but that could come down to QC. So an underspec'ed version could be perfect for me.
The other option I'm considering is getting the TF40 305 and add a heavier grip to it. TW say it's an easier swinging racquet in their reviews in comparison so that could be my ticket. I just can't find a demo locally being Canadian so probably will just buy it blind. Best feeling and most comfortable racquet of all that I tried recently. Foam filled core racquets from now on for me.

The other racquet that impressed me is the current Radical MP. Man, I was ripping some serious 1HBH with it. Great serving racquet too. It just feels too damn stiff and could cause elbow issues I'm foreseeing. That mainly, and it's retina burning paint job, are the reasons why I'm not getting it. The TF40 305's specs are nearly identical to the Radical so fingers crossed that it'll play similarly.
I had the tf40 305. I wanted to like it but gave up. It just felt too head heavy even though I tried to tail weight it. I was advised that the 315 version would be a better fit for me.
 
I don't find the Gravity Pro to be sluggish on the OHBH side at all... but mine is modified with weight in the head and handle.
It also depends what specs yours was stock since the Gravity's have a pretty nasty QC lottery. All the ones I've tried have been 335-345 SW and from what I've seen they're over spec pretty often...if I'd have tried one that was maybe 325-329 SW I'd probably have a diff. opinion
 
I had the tf40 305. I wanted to like it but gave up. It just felt too head heavy even though I tried to tail weight it. I was advised that the 315 version would be a better fit for me.
It will be, the 315 is a gem for sure. I wish I had one that was on spec though (mine's over spec at 342g strung)...
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
For sure, it depends on your level and your opponent. And at a certain skill level, a player can adapt to any racquet. When I came back to tennis, I was trying to stick to smaller head sizes with dense patterns since those were what I played with previously. But as I played more and understood my game and my opponent's games better, I had to explore alternatives.

Imagine my shock when I found myself playing my best tennis with 100 and a 16x19 pattern. But do I still take the nCode out for an occasion session? You bet I do.
I understand. I'm in my mid-40s now... the legs don't move as they did in my 20s and 30s, but I still try to hit with my PT630s, RT630s, C10 Pros, Mids, etc. I use them as my training and conditioning tools. I have brought the G360+ Speed Pro, Gravity Pro, and IG Speed 300 MP into the fold, and found them to be excellent racquets and helpful with some of the issues I'm facing and transitions I might need to make as time goes by. They do make a difference, but when I lay my 98s over my 100s, the difference in head size is very small. So small in fact, that I have to admit to myself that it has to be a thing in my head (psychological)... a few mm can't be the difference between success and failure. Therefore, while I still can, I will work harder to make sure that those few mm of a gap are closed with better movement, working on hand-to-eye coordination (keeping my eye on the ball), and better fitness and conditioning.

The other thing that I noticed was that as I tried lower-weight racquets, my opponents were getting to more of the balls, and the feedback was that the shots had less weight (I wasn't pushing them back or putting as much pressure on them). Therefore, I would need to start swinging much faster and harder to have the same effect (which is not going to be good on the joints and tendons as I get older), and this will also tire me out in a different way. Furthermore, if more balls keep coming back, the points will also be much longer, which will put more strain on my body and require even greater fitness. So, what ends up happening is that I add weight to the Head in order to increase the power, weight-of-shot, court penetration, stability on off-center shots, and the size of the sweet zone. Then, to keep the balance either where it was in stock form or make the racquet more HL, I need to add further weight to the handle... and I still end up with a racquet that is 350-360g static weight when strung, and that has a SW of 335+. So, I'm back at the weight and SW of the PT630s and old-school Mids.


Therefore, I use them all interchangeably... and if I feel I'm mishitting with the 95s/ 98s and I'm having a bad day... I will try my 100s (which are still quite control-oriented - not Pure Drive levels of power). Deep down though... I know the difference is very small between my 98s and my 100s, and that I just need to work a bit harder on the fitness and fundamentals.

The Mids have been relegated to the Training/Fun Only category, as the difference between them and the 100s is more noticeable... but they are still great fun and awesome tools for getting the eye in.

I know there will come a day when I will start to rely on the 100s more... and then change them to more powerful 100s (like a Pure Drive or Dunlop SX 300 Tour)... but I'm not there yet.

Sorry for the long post. As you can see... I'm still battling and not wanting to give up. :oops::rolleyes:;):laughing:
 
Last edited:

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
It also depends what specs yours was stock since the Gravity's have a pretty nasty QC lottery. All the ones I've tried have been 335-345 SW and from what I've seen they're over spec pretty often...if I'd have tried one that was maybe 325-329 SW I'd probably have a diff. opinion
Not sure about the SW... as I didn't have a machine to measure it... but Unstrung they were both the same static weight (to the gram), and their balance was 315mm for one and 317mm for the other (which in my book is so close it makes no difference). The second did feel a bit more head-heavy when swinging (so I just added less weight to the 12 o'clock position). Once they were modified though, they were both 360g, 315mm balance, and felt identical when swinging (I'm sure their SW is 340+, but I'm not bothered as I can play with them for hours without a problem).

All in all, I'm very happy.
 

bertrevert

Hall of Fame
I know there will come a day when I will start to rely on the 100s more... and then change them to more powerful 100s (like a Pure Drive or Dunlop SX 300 Tour)... but I'm not there yet.
Am in my mid-50s... and I don't reckon you will. The 100s don't solve it. Y'll be in yr mid next-decade and you won't be much off yr present one btw. And yr 1hbh will still be yr 1hbh. If anything it might be more itself! Y'll adjust with strings or maybe a reduction in SW is all.
 

bertrevert

Hall of Fame
I just cannot seem to get along with 100sq on my 1hbh and although I love the forgiveness of such a racq (Speed MP) it just doesn't chime over time...

I seem to do best (best judgement of shots in relation to: depth - particularly depth - angles, aggression, defence) with this old 96 weirdo wilson racq...

#@**!#!XZ!@#... that is, gosh darn it, so what's good for my 1hbh?

Old weirdo wilson 96 KTour is.

Rips thru the O2 like an acetylene blowtorch.

Weighted to a hair under 320g and 32cm balance this thing is a blast.

So once again... small headsize, HL balance
 
Last edited:

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
Am in my mid-50s... and I don't reckon you will. The 100s don't solve it. Y'll be in yr mid next-decade and you won't be much off yr present one btw. And yr 1hbh will still be yr 1hbh. If anything it might be more itself! Y'll adjust with strings or maybe a reduction in SW is all.
Thanks for that.

When I said..."I know there will come a day...", in my head that was when I'm in my 70s or 80s... :rolleyes::giggle::laughing::-D;) I'm hoping to still be giving the 20 year olds a run for their money in my 50s and 60s...;)(y)

Only time will tell.
 

1HBHfanatic

Legend
I just cannot seem to get along with 100sq on my 1hbh and although I love the forgiveness of such a racq (Speed MP) it just doesn't chime over time...
.....
So once again... small headsize, HL balance
-agree here ^^
-over time ,(to compensate on the extra drag) i find myself slicing the backhands more than coming over top with the 1HBH, with 100"< racquets
-97s seem to be ok, but i wish there were more 95s
-my 93" k-blades are something "special" on the 1HBH, i miss them
 

phanamous

New User
As an experiment, I bought a 2013 Wilson Blade 101L for cheap to play around as it's 275gm unstrung. After some lead and nails in the handle, it's 330gm 7HL strung.
It's my fav currently and surprisingly good for my 1HBH too. Very comfy and I can get more spin on the backhand than my other standard 98 frames. Just a very easy frame to play with. Got a Blade 101L V7 also for cheap though I prefer the 2013 version but can't find them anymore.
Just got myself a TF40 315 today. Doesn't quite play the same as I recall with the demo. Need some trials with strings to dial it in. Early impression is that it won't dethrone my Blade 101L which cost less than $100 new. Early days still.
 

bertrevert

Hall of Fame
nails in the handle,
Bloddy 'ell mate, tuff as nails!

it's 330gm 7HL strung. It's my fav currently and surprisingly good for my 1HBH too. Very comfy and I can get more spin on the backhand
Yeh see we're not going to better what appears to be a suitable formula, something like where dynamics meets mechanics! I do believe Justine Hennin(Hardenne?) used head-heavy I think? If so she was small stature countering the likes of Serena power.
 

bertrevert

Hall of Fame
-agree here ^^
-over time ,(to compensate on the extra drag) i find myself slicing the backhands more than coming over top with the 1HBH, with 100"< racquets
-97s seem to be ok, but i wish there were more 95s
-my 93" k-blades are something "special" on the 1HBH, i miss them
Feel sure 2hbh would larf at us... "extra drag" whattya talkin' 'bout! However, totally agree. Whatever it is, freeing up the 1hbh seems to require some careful plotting on our part. Like it's sensitive to whatevers right. Otherwise we wouldn't be fussing about it here. Think the window for contact with the ball when 1hbh is a bit harder to meet, technique-wise, hence we have to get the equipment right.

(I mean a Sampras slaughters with like 340 or 360 grams but up close that guy was a phenomenal athlete, a big panther padding around the court, when by contrast he was playing little Lleyton Hewitt was that Lleyton was just popping his 2hbh guiding it back into crt using a 90sq in.)

Yes the 93 blade bit unsure if I had it, may have for short time only, seem to remember the tan leather grip, the nippy thru-the-air feel, but also this (again short time) http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/wilson-k-pro-tour-96.342334/
 

morten

Hall of Fame
Bloddy 'ell mate, tuff as nails!


Yeh see we're not going to better what appears to be a suitable formula, something like where dynamics meets mechanics! I do believe Justine Hennin(Hardenne?) used head-heavy I think? If so she was small stature countering the likes of Serena power.
You are right, Justine did..
 

1HBHfanatic

Legend
Feel sure 2hbh would larf at us... "extra drag" whattya talkin' 'bout! However, totally agree. Whatever it is, freeing up the 1hbh seems to require some careful plotting on our part. Like it's sensitive to whatevers right. Otherwise we wouldn't be fussing about it here. Think the window for contact with the ball when 1hbh is a bit harder to meet, technique-wise, hence we have to get the equipment right.

(I mean a Sampras slaughters with like 340 or 360 grams but up close that guy was a phenomenal athlete, a big panther padding around the court, when by contrast he was playing little Lleyton Hewitt was that Lleyton was just popping his 2hbh guiding it back into crt using a 90sq in.)

Yes the 93 blade bit unsure if I had it, may have for short time only, seem to remember the tan leather grip, the nippy thru-the-air feel, but also this (again short time) http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/wilson-k-pro-tour-96.342334/
 

flanker2000fr

Hall of Fame
Am in my mid-50s... and I don't reckon you will. The 100s don't solve it. Y'll be in yr mid next-decade and you won't be much off yr present one btw. And yr 1hbh will still be yr 1hbh. If anything it might be more itself! Y'll adjust with strings or maybe a reduction in SW is all.
51 year old here - I would echo that. After determining 3 years ago that the Prince Phantom 93P was too tiring and demanding, I had convinced myself that I needed to go to 100 sq.in. frame. I went through phases of playing a Phantom 100P, a Prince Classic Graphite 100 and an Angell TC100. All great frames, with a relatively thin beam as I like a classic feel, but I could not gel with any of them. The Prince's, I found them rather cumbersome on the OHBH, probably because of the very round head shape. The TC100 was not as cumbersome on that wing, with its elongated shape. But for all of them, I found a lack of connection to the ball, with balls flying on me. Probably the combination of 100 sq.in. with an open string pattern.

That brought me back to 95sq.in. in the form of the Angell TC95 in both string patterns (16x19 and 18x20), which I still find usable even in competition. A few observations that I found useful as I age:
- dropping a few kg of body weight makes a substantial difference in my playing level. 3-5 extra sq.in. doesn't make up for slow movement and running out of puff quickly. So looking at my physical shape brings me more benefit than any racquet switch
- trying to be more offensive and keep points short to work around physical limitations
- if one has, as I do, a traditional technique (Eastern FH, OHBH, slice) that suits a 95sq.in., dropping static weight in the racquet does help making it more manageable and less tiring. I went from 330g unstrung for the 93P to 310g unstrung for the TC95, and have not noticed a significant drop in power / heaviness to my ball. That's because the TC95 has a relatively high swing weight even at 310g / 315mm due to its foam filled construction. But even non foam filled racquets like, say, a Yonex Vcore 95 could be brought to high 320 / low 330 SW with the addition of just a few g of lead in the hoop, while keeping static weight manageable at < 315g unstrung
- strings can make a substantial difference in playability. Dropping a few lbs in tension, going for thinner gauges, using a hybrid set-up instead of full bed of polyester, all of those help opening up the sweet spot and get more pop on the ball (not to mention more comfort for ageing joints)
 
Last edited:

slipgrip93

Semi-Pro
Yeh see we're not going to better what appears to be a suitable formula, something like where dynamics meets mechanics! I do believe Justine Hennin(Hardenne?) used head-heavy I think? If so she was small stature countering the likes of Serena power.
I have a used Ktour 95, the racquet model Henin supposedly used in 2008 which was unfortunately her problem year of injuries which led to her undue retirement. Yes it can be head heavy, but barely, so maybe she was going for more of a close to "even" balance(?). My KTour 95 is currently 0.5 pts headlight. And it's also a fourth of an inch longer than than the 27" standard length.

- if one has, as I do, a traditional technique (Eastern FH, OHBH, slice) that suits a 95sq.in., dropping static weight in the racquet does help making it more manageable and less tiring. I went from 330g unstrung for the 93P to 310g
..
That's because the TC95 has a relatively high swing weight even at 310g / 315mm due to its foam filled construction. But even non foam filled racquets like, say, a Yonex Vcore 95 could be brought to high 320 / low 330 SW with the addition of just a few g of lead in the hoop, while keeping static weight manageable at < 315g unstrung
Interestingly, my Ktour95 is similar in that the static weight is 311g, but my rough estimate of the swingweight (until I bring it into a proshop for a sw test) is probably >= 320g.
 
Last edited:

flanker2000fr

Hall of Fame
Interestingly, my Ktour95 is similar in that the static weight is 311g, but my rough estimate of the swingweight (until I bring it into a proshop for a sw test) is probably >= 320g.
For us players interested in classic playing frames, but who can't cope with moving a heavy racquet over the course of a full competitive singles game, I really think there is something to be said about frames around 310g / 315g uncustomized / unstrung which have a strung SW in the mid 320's. On those, adding just a couple of grams of lead at 12 will get the SW at or slightly above 330, which would feel familiar and give us the kind of plow through and stability we seek. It's far more difficult with a frame like the Dunlop CX Tour 200 16x19, with its SW in the mid-high 310's, where a lot of additional weight needs to be added to get those characeristics, at which point the static weight becomes quite high and tiring.
 

Injured Again

Hall of Fame
Am in my mid-50s... and I don't reckon you will. The 100s don't solve it. Y'll be in yr mid next-decade and you won't be much off yr present one btw. And yr 1hbh will still be yr 1hbh. If anything it might be more itself! Y'll adjust with strings or maybe a reduction in SW is all.
I'm soon to be 60 and have what seems to be a pretty good OHBH for a 4.5 player of my age. I don't notice problems with hitting my backhand with a wide variety of racquets. I'm currently using a 350 gram 345 SW 28" long SW104 and have no problems, and had a couple of month flirtation with a 27.5", 112 square inch Aero 112 racquet also with no problems. Sure, there are differences, but there are also differences if you play on a hot day versus a cold day, or with the wind against you versus at your back, or with Penn Champ balls or Wilson US Open balls. And I also have preferences but only at the extreme top end of my tennis capability. If I'm hitting 90% or less, I can rally with most anything. So I wonder how much of a problem people have with racquets and the OHBH is because they believe they will have problems. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As an example, here's a video I shot of my first day with a demo Aero 112 from Tennis Warehouse. Not only was this racquet about 6 points HH (versus my SW104 which is about 10 points HL), it also had synthetic gut strings when I always use a full bed of poly. And the strings were well used. And the grip size was a 3/8 while I use a 6/8. And it was within a week or two of when our club finally reopened after a long pandemic closure. And the balls were flat from sitting for more than six weeks totally unused. Still, it seems that good contact is good contact, and good contact leads to balls going generally where they are supposed to go.


For those of you who have problems, what kind of problems do you have? All I've read in this thread is that a heavier racquet can be sluggish for a OHBH. I can believe that. But what else? And how do you not encounter that same issue when playing with your preferred OHBH racquet and in some environmental condition that mimics that problem?
 

canta_Brian

Professional
I'm soon to be 60 and have what seems to be a pretty good OHBH for a 4.5 player of my age. I don't notice problems with hitting my backhand with a wide variety of racquets. I'm currently using a 350 gram 345 SW 28" long SW104 and have no problems, and had a couple of month flirtation with a 27.5", 112 square inch Aero 112 racquet also with no problems. Sure, there are differences, but there are also differences if you play on a hot day versus a cold day, or with the wind against you versus at your back, or with Penn Champ balls or Wilson US Open balls. And I also have preferences but only at the extreme top end of my tennis capability. If I'm hitting 90% or less, I can rally with most anything. So I wonder how much of a problem people have with racquets and the OHBH is because they believe they will have problems. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As an example, here's a video I shot of my first day with a demo Aero 112 from Tennis Warehouse. Not only was this racquet about 6 points HH (versus my SW104 which is about 10 points HL), it also had synthetic gut strings when I always use a full bed of poly. And the strings were well used. And the grip size was a 3/8 while I use a 6/8. And it was within a week or two of when our club finally reopened after a long pandemic closure. And the balls were flat from sitting for more than six weeks totally unused. Still, it seems that good contact is good contact, and good contact leads to balls going generally where they are supposed to go.


For those of you who have problems, what kind of problems do you have? All I've read in this thread is that a heavier racquet can be sluggish for a OHBH. I can believe that. But what else? And how do you not encounter that same issue when playing with your preferred OHBH racquet and in some environmental condition that mimics that problem?
I don’t think people have a problem with heavy, so long as it is head light. I was surprised by how difficult I found it to hit light frames that were balance towards the head. I like the racquet to rotate around the throat.
 
Top