SmilinBob's Racquet Reviews

[SmilinBob]

Long time listener, first time caller...

In the last year, after a long hiatus from tennis, I’ve decided I need to get back into the sport. After a recent cross-country move where golf is less of a priority (it had taken over for the last decade) and too much of a time hog, it’s time to hit the courts again. As I have been dipping my toes back in the water and playing for the last nine months or so, I’ve spent plenty of time online looking into the new technology of racquets and strings as well as playing enough to re-find my game, a process that is moving, albeit slowly. Given that, combined with some issues I have with my current frames, it’s time to update the bag.

REVIEWS INDEX (By Brand, Then Chronological)

WILSON
Wilson Hammer 6.2 95 (Original)
Wilson BLX Juice Pro
Wilson BLX Blade 98 (Pink/Gold Version)
Wilson Steam BLX 100
Wilson BLX Six.One 95 16x18
Wilson BLX Pro Staff 95
Wilson BLX Six.One Team
Wilson BLX Tour (2012/Orange Edition)
Wilson Steam 99S
Wilson Blade 98 16x19
Wilson BLX Pro Staff 90
Wilson Pro Staff 95S
Wilson Six.One 95S
Wilson Pro Staff 100L
Wilson Pro Staff 6.0 85 (TW Re-Issue)

BABOLAT
Babolat AeroPro Drive GT
Babolat Pure Drive
Babolat Pure Drive Roddick Plus
Babolat Pure Storm GT

HEAD
Head Youtek IG Extreme Pro 2.0
Head Youtek IG Prestige Mid Plus
Head Youtek IG Radical Mid Plus
Head Youtek IG Prestige S
Head Youtek IG Radical Pro
Head Youtek Graphene Speed MP (Part 2)

PRINCE
Prince EXO3 Tour Team
Prince EXO3 Rebel 98
Prince Tour 98 ESP

PROKENNEX
ProKennex 7G
ProKennex Ki 5x

PACIFIC
Pacific X Force
Pacific X Feel Tour
Pacific X Fast Pro 100

DUNLOP/SLAZENGER
Slazenger V98 Team (Part 2)
Dunlop Biomimetic M3.0
Dunlop Biomimetic Max 200G

YONEX
Yonex VCORE Tour 97 (330g)
Yonex VCORE Tour G 310

DONNAY
Donnay Pro One 16x19

Technifibre
Technifibre TFight 315 LTD TP ATP 16


Cliff Notes:

I'm a die-hard left-handed serve-and-volleyer that played for 17 years with Wilson Hammer 6.2 "Skunks". My skunk frames are all war-damaged, a bit hard on the arm, and not as forgiving as many of today's newer frames (they favor power over control). So that's why I'm searching.

I've purchased the Head Graphene Speed MP and the Slazenger V98 Team (read the multiple reviews) yet my search continues...

 

[SmilinBob]

Wilson Hammer 6.2 95 (Original)

http://www.racquetresearch.com/Discontinued.htm

First Impressions:

I still vividly remember my first demo with this racquet. I hit with it over a span of two or three weeks during off-season drills, also hitting with the Hammer 5.2 (a blue-ish/purple-ish paint scheme similar to the Skunk) and also the Pro Staff 6.6si, the one painted like an American flag.

Groundstrokes:

As I started to play (and still to this day), the main goal I have from the baseline was to keep the ball as deep in the court as possible. The Skunk 6.2 did a great job at that and to this day still does. The sweet spot seemed enormous. I felt like I could hit my old two-handed backhand as hard as I wanted and still keep the ball deep but in the court. My forehand for years was my weaker shot and the Skunk 6.2 had enough pop to it that I could still hit with decent pace. Despite the Skunk 6.2 leaning more towards power than control, I could still turn over some sharp cross-court shots. Slices stayed nice and low and had great skid on the bounce, rarely floating or sitting up. It was a reliable stick from the ground capable of almost anything that was asked of it.

Volleys:

I was never satisfied with how the Skunk 6.2 volleyed until I added some lead tape to the hoop, which made it an amazing racquet at the net. I always felt like it was light and maneuverable yet solid as a rock. Deep volleys to the corners were a non-issue and they popped off the racquet well. Touch shots around the net simply meant holding the racquet a little looser and letting it absorb the pace. The feel at the net (with the right string) was what I would describe as meaty-soft. It wasn’t squishy, yet wasn’t firm either. The sweet spot felt quite large too.

Serves:

First serves with the Skunk 6.2 are still the bar that others seek to achieve, but that might be due to my length of experience with the racquet and developing as a player with it. First serve bombs up the T were the racquet’s forte and the open string pattern was capable of putting plenty of sauce on wide slices or topspin/kick serves anywhere in the box. The racquet never got lost in my service motion so I always felt connected with my timing.

Second serves with the Skunk 6.2 relied on the open string pattern (and the right string) to put plenty of spin on the ball and topspin/kick serves stayed plenty deep in the service box. While control was good but never pin-point on second serves, I found that I was able to generate enough spin and pace to effectively throw it anywhere in the box and still come in behind a second aggressively. The best ace I’ve ever hit was a second serve ace on Har-Tru with the Skunk 6.2, hitting a heavy topspin kicker that bounced over my opponent’s head.

Serve Returns:

I’ve never been a strong returner and my return game is best described as a chip/block game. The Skunk 6.2 had enough mass in the hoop to keep the ball deep and slices stayed low, rarely floating. I had mixed success with more aggressive returns however. I could rip at a second serve meatball from the backhand side, however the extra lead on the tip made quick swings from the forehand wing sometimes feel sluggish.

Overall:

The Skunk 6.2 was a fantastic racquet. It has always fit my game very well allowing me to hit big first serves at will, and aggressive second serves too. Volley performance was outstanding and I could close out points at the net quickly. The only downside to the Skunk 6.2 that I’ve found is (for me) the frame was very string-sensitive and played completely different from one brand/type to the next. If I could still get Hammertec 17 gauge string and didn’t have issues with two of three frames, I’d never switch. The blend of control and power in the 6.2 is nearly unmatched in my book. Nearly.

 

[SmilinBob]

Wilson BLX Juice Pro

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Wilson_BLX_Juice_Pro/descpageRCWILSON-WJP.html

First Impressions:

It looks better in person than it does in pictures, but it’s still a bright “look at me” kind of racquet. It’s a beefy, heavy feeling stick with a head shape that reminds me quite a bit of my old Skunk 6.2.

Groundstrokes:

The Juice did one thing on ground strokes, and did it very well: It got the ball deep in the court. I could really feel the mass when I swung and the 16x20 pattern felt like a good blend between too open and too tight. As a flatter hitter, the heft of the Juice seemed to work well when I’d crank it up a few notches to hit one with a bit more on it. Tight angles and approach shots though were a bit more delicate and it took some mental reminders to not swing out too much when coming up to the net on an approach and let the weight of the racquet do the work. My regular miss with the Juice was long.

Volleys:

Volleys felt solid as the mass of the racquet helped quite a bit. Despite being spec’d as 8 points headlight though, it felt very sluggish. For some reason the sweet spot seemed to feel a bit smaller at the net than from the baseline. Even though the head shape looks similar to my skunk, the racquet (to me) felt a bit narrow from 3 to 9. No explanation why, that’s just how it felt.

Serves:

If the Juice gets a gold star, it’s on first serves. My game is built around a strong first serve, and the Juice is a bomber. The extra reach, even though its only ¼”, is noticeable and helped me as a lefty get the wide serve to the deuce court out a bit further than my old Skunk 6.2s and anything up the T was easy to just murder the ball. I definitely managed plenty of free first serve points with the Juice Pro.

The second serve however was a bit of a different story, and one where I noticed two things. First, the heft that helps crush a flat serve feels much more sluggish when trying to really get the racquet head up and around the ball for a good topspin/kicker second. I had a bit less confidence in controlling the second reliably, which is a must for my serve-and-volley game. The second thing I really started to notice is the heft of the racquet when serving is simply tiring. I’m by no means a small or weak guy, but the racquet just left my shoulder fatigued. As my playing time with the Juice went on, my serves started to slowly degrade.

Serve Returns:

I’m self-admitted not a great returner, and this is one area where I really think the Juice shined. The extra length got the sweet spot out there just ever-so-slightly, helping get returns a bit deeper. The mass of the racquet made for surprisingly good block and chip returns, keeping them deep. It was a bit harder to tee off on a return though as the racquet just didn’t feel that maneuverable. That’s not really my game so it didn’t bother me too much and was similar to my old Skunk 6.2s in that respect.

Overall:

The Juice Pro is a really great racquet for a serve-and-volleyer that hits flatter like me. I in fact came back to this racquet two additional times during my demo process. The first serve bombs are addictive and it feels solid without being stiff or harsh, despite a hybrid with poly in it. Ultimately though, the sluggishness of the racquet was just too much for my second serve. I thought I would be OK with the swing weight (my skunk’s swing weight is even higher) but the way the mass is laid out in the racquet, it felt much heavier and more sluggish and just wore me out. If tennis were only tie breakers, I’d have a Juice Pro in my bag. I ended up passing on the Juice Pro, but give it very high marks.

 

[SmilinBob]

Babolat Aero Pro Drive GT

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Babolat_AeroPro_Drive_GT/descpageRCBAB-BAPDGT.html

First Impressions:

The local racquet shop recommended this racquet as a must-demo. I’ve been out of tennis long enough I was somewhat unaware of how polarized opinions of Babolat racquets seem to be, but I took the recommendation and hit with it.

Groundstrokes:

This was the first 100 square inch racquet I had ever hit with. Despite the bigger head size, it didn’t feel sluggish or oversized at all. As I write this, I’m left trying to figure out how to describe what seemed to be just a middle-of-the-road experience hitting balls with the Aero Pro Drive GT. It wasn’t bad, but nothing memorable about it at all. Depth control was just OK, with more misses short than long. My only complaint would be that it felt tinny, especially outside of the sweet spot. Despite only the one complaint, I just don’t have a lot of praise to heap on. Just “eh.”

Volleys:

The racquet felt plenty maneuverable at the net and the slightly larger head size was a nice surprise. You read a lot about the smaller heads being so much better volleying (not arguing with other’s opinions but mathematically 100 sq inches > 85 sq inches) and the larger string bed gave me more surface area to hit the ball and was more forgiving. While maneuverable, volleys fell in the same category as groundstrokes. The racquet wasn’t bad, but nothing really jumps out as memorable about it, besides having a bit more string out there for the ball to catch. I noticed the same tinny feeling on volleys, and would describe the volleys as rather hollow. My skunk 6.2 had a distinct feeling at the net that is much more substantial, however this might be due to differences in string.

Serves:

The Aero Pro Drive GT didn’t do much for me on first serves. My first serve didn’t seem to have any extra heat, in fact the returns seemed to come back with a bit more frequency than with my skunk 6.2s. It was hard to feel where the tip of the racquet was as I went up after the ball which made it harder for me to get the serve wide to the deuce court (lefty, remember) and the heater up the T in the ad court seemed to lose a bit of punch. It was just hard to tell where the racquet was so my pronation through contact felt like a bit of a mystery.

I again noticed the extra head size though on the second serve and felt like I could get the topspin/kicker into the service box with a healthy amount of spin on it. My only complaint is that second serves didn’t seem to be getting all that deep in the box. I come in behind almost every serve and was caught as a sitting duck a few times on short second serves.

Serve Returns:

It felt like a maneuverable racquet that screams to play against a weak serve. The only time I ever really try to go after a return is either a sharp cross court forehand or a backhand up the line. The cross courter was the one I could get away with using the Aero Pro Drive GT, with the up-the-liner having mixed success. My return game is really more of a chip/block game though, and the Aero Pro Drive GT was again sort of an “eh” racquet. I could get the ball deep, but they tended to be floaters. People seem to be allergic to the net these days, so I’m not sure it cost me any points, but didn’t win me any either.

Overall:

A maneuverable racquet that to me was just middle of the road, not really excelling at anything, but not really stinking at anything either. The feel of the racquet seemed off though with a tinny hollowness on shots, especially those outside the sweet spot. My guess is that my game, serve-and-volley with flatter ground strokes, just isn’t the right game for this racquet. I only demoed this racquet the once.

 

[SmilinBob]

Babolat Pure Drive

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Babolat_Pure_Drive/descpageRCBAB-BPD11.html

First Impressions:

The first thing I noticed about the Pure Drive was the thick beam on the racquet. It also felt a bit heftier than the specs suggested. This was the second racquet I hit with that had a 100 square inch head size.

Groundstrokes:

Apparently the rumors are true: This thing can be a cannon from the baseline. I didn’t find it difficult at all to get plenty of pop on my shots from either wing. Keeping the ball deep was easy. The racquet felt like one that’s purpose-built for deep cross-court shots. I felt like even defensive ground strokes still had decent depth and pace. I did notice a similar tinny/hollow feeling as the Aero Pro Drive GT, but it was a bit more muted.

The one thing I did notice though: This racquet is stiff. I haven’t been racquet shopping in 19 years and since I demoed this racquet I’ve read up plenty on racquet stiffness, trying to understand a strange feeling in my upper forearm and triceps when hitting with the Pure Drive. I went into this demo process without any pre-conceived opinions of Babolat racquets (I really hadn’t heard much about them at all) and since (with more to come), I am starting to side with those who think of them as arm destroyers.

Volleys:

Volleys felt pretty solid and I liked the larger head size. The racquet felt plenty maneuverable and defensive volleys still had some pop to them. The sweet spot at the net felt bigger than the Aero Pro Drive GT and the racquet felt a bit more stable too. Volleys did however have most of that hollowness to them. It is a difficult feeling to describe, and one that doesn’t built confidence in feeling when a volley is caught true on the racquet.

Serves:

First serves had plenty of pop on them. The heater up the tee worked pretty well, but I did have a bit of trouble getting the serve out wide to the deuce court (lefty) and the Pure Drive felt similar to the Aero Pro Drive GT in that it was hard to feel where the tip of the racquet was on the first serve.

Second serves were a pleasant surprise. The larger head size made for reliable second serves and the extra pop from the Pure Drive over the Aero Pro Drive GT got the second serves deeper into the box. I did manage to frame a few and it would be easy to blame the thick beam, but it isn’t any thicker than the Aero Pro Drive GT and neither of them is all that thicker than my Skunk 6.2s.

Serve Returns:

I can’t really complain about serve returns. My chip/block returns were getting deep enough to be effective against players that stayed at the baseline. For a racquet with healthy power, it felt maneuverable, but I wasn’t confident in taking too big a cut at some meatball second serves. The power of the racquet despite its lighter weight had me sailing a fair amount of returns long.

Overall:

I liked the power of the Pure Drive and enjoyed hitting with it from the baseline quite a bit. It was good on second serves too. Despite that though, this is a racquet that I quickly walked away from. The stiffness is noticeable and I grew to really not like the tinny/hollow feeling shared by the Aero Pro Drive GT and the Pure Drive. I was hoping for a lighter, more maneuverable Wilson Juice Pro with a larger head size and didn’t get it.

 

[SmilinBob]

Babolat Pure Drive Roddick Plus

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Babolat_Pure_Drive_Roddick_Plus/descpageRCBAB-BPRP12.html

First Impressions:

Compared to the regular Pure Drive, the Roddick Plus is definitely a beefier stick. The extra length is noticeable. I decided to demo this racquet after talking with the guys at the local pro shop when I returned the regular Pure Drive, prior to my research into racquet stiffness. They recommended giving the heavier version a try.

Groundstrokes:

From the baseline this racquet felt very similar to the regular Pure Drive. The ball goes deep and it’s definitely a powerful racquet that puts some mustard on the ball. It did feel more sluggish than the regular Pure Drive, easily attributable to the extra weight and length. The racquet plowed through the ball better for me and backhand slices stayed nice and low on the bounce without floating. Approach shots took a little care and feeding to not hit long with time to prepare to get the racquet around. The tinny/hollow feeling I experienced in other Babolat racquets was quite a bit more muted in the heavier racquet but still present.

Volleys:

I liked the extra reach on volleys. I played singles against a guy who got everything back and had good passing shots and getting the tip of the racquet out there just a bit further was quite a help. I again liked the bigger head size and the sweet spot felt a little bit bigger than the regular Pure Drive. The weight and length of the racquet did make it less maneuverable though. It felt relatively stable, but I wouldn’t quite put it up there with the Juice Pro, Prestige MP, or Six.One 95. Again, the tinny/hollow feeling was more muted than in the other Babolat frames but still there.

Serves:

The Roddick Plus does one thing vastly superior to its other Babolat brethren and that is serve. First serves have plenty of heat on them and on first serves especially I could really feel the extra length. It gave me a distinct feeling of reach and being able to hit it down into the service box. The extra weight also made it much easier to feel where the racquet was during my serve and made it easier than the other Babolats to move around the box. I wouldn’t call control spectacular though as every few serves would get away from me.

Second serves are where the Roddick Plus really shines. The extra head size really helped get the topspin/kicker in. The weight is noticeable though. It didn’t feel quite as heavy as the Juice Pro and seemed to get up to the ball a bit quicker. The most impressive to me was that I only double-faulted with this racquet once. The Roddick Plus was much better than my old Skunk 6.2s in the second serve department. In fact of any racquet I’ve demoed, the Roddick Plus was the best on second serves.

Serve Returns:

Serve returns felt very similar to the regular Pure Drive, however the extra heft of the racquet had me swinging away at second serves much less. It took a lot to get prepared for a return and get the racquet in the right spot and I missed a number of returns long. My more typical chip/block returns were effective, especially backhand slice returns which only took a short cut to generate a decent return. It returned first serve pace very well.

Overall:

Very impressive racquet on serves, especially second serves. I felt like of all the Babolats, this one was probably the best fit for my relatively flat/serve-and-volley game (more on the Pure Storm coming) and had good power on all strokes. It did have a habit of turning into a rocket launcher though as my misses were consistently long (as opposed to short or in the net). It wasn’t until an hour or two after hitting with the Roddick Plus that I gave up on it forever though: I could still feel it in my arm. While less tinny/hollow than the other Babolats, there was a dull sensation in my arm I didn’t like. It was actually that afternoon that I started researching the cause that led me to racquet stiffness.

 

[SmilinBob]

Head Youtek IG Extreme Pro 2.0

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Head_YOUTEK_IG_Extreme_Pro_20/descpageRCHEAD-HYTIGX.html

First Impressions:

This was a substantial stick with a paint job that I half thought might actually glow in the dark. I did not test this hypothesis however and instead ended up playing several sets of singles with this racquet.

Groundstrokes:

Of all the racquets I demoed, the Extreme Pro 2.0 might have been the most powerful. Shots were easy to keep deep and the ball had plenty of pace. Despite the static weight, it didn’t feel sluggish, however it had a club-like feel to it. It felt a bit head heavier than its specs suggested but still felt decently maneuverable. The feeling on contact was much softer than its stiffness would indicate and it absorbed pace well. The only downside to the Extreme Pro 2.0 is that it had a really bad habit of sending shots too long. Balls just loved the back of the court and a few (probably more to do with technique and a very powerful racquet) enjoyed a non-stop flight to the back fence. Slices were heavy but too many were floating long on me. I just couldn’t seem to adjust to the balls flying long.

Volleys:

It wasn’t until I started hitting some volleys that I noticed the oddity of this racquet: The weird head shape. It had a very round head shape and the sweet spot felt huge. Much like the Babolats I did enjoy the extra head size of the Extreme Pro 2.0 as I felt like it gave me more forgiveness on volleys. Volleys deep to the corners were really good, but I felt like the racquet lacked control. Touch volleys were near-impossible as the ball just wanted to go deep. The feel on volleys was good, much like groundstrokes, and it did feel much softer than the stiffness rating of the racquet suggested.

Serves:

The Extreme Pro 2.0 can really deliver some heat on first serves and had enough heft to it that I could feel where the racquet was during my service motion. While I was able to hit with some nice pace, I did find control difficult. It was tricky getting serves out wide on both sides of the court, but serves up the middle were effective. I didn’t feel quite as comfortable really moving the ball around the service box because I wasn’t confident in the control provided by the racquet.

Second serves however were really good. The round head shape was helpful when really going up after the ball for a topspin/kicker serve. I was able to consistently keep the ball deep in the service box, but still felt a distinct lack of control. What I found however with second serves was that I could keep the ball deep enough in the box with enough pace that just getting it in was effective enough and I still felt like I could come in behind second serves.

Serve Returns:

Maybe the highlight of the Extreme Pro 2.0 was serve returns. My return game is mostly chip/block style returns and the Extreme Pro 2.0 had plenty of power to keep the ball consistently deep. Going after meatball second serves was a bit trickier as the power of the racquet was difficult to tame and I sent a few returns long. The racquet essentially played to my return strengths keeping things simple with short, punchy returns that stayed deep.

Overall:

With the Extreme Pro 2.0 I found a super powerful racquet with a surprising level of comfort given the racquet’s spec’d stiffness. Despite demoing the racquet strung with a hybrid poly I just couldn’t control the racquet. I left too many shots long and wasn’t comfortable going after my first serve wide on either wing.

 

[SmilinBob]

Wilson BLX Blade 98 (Pink/Gold Version)

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Wilson_BLX_Blade_98/descpageRCWILSON-BLXB98.html

First Impressions:

Spec-wise this seemed like it could fit the bill for me. After demoing a few Babolats and the Juice Pro, a bigger head size with a bit of swing weight sounded like it could work out. Reviews online seemed favorable so I picked up the hot pink banshee from my local pro shop and hit the courts.

Groundstrokes:

The Blade 98 didn’t do much for me from the baseline. While I felt like I had decent control on my angles, I didn’t feel like I could control depth, particularly keeping the ball deep as much as I would like. The sweet spot felt surprisingly small for a racquet with a larger head size and the drop off in pace was really noticeable on any ball caught outside the center.

Volleys:

The Blade 98 was the first racquet I demoed with an 18x20 string pattern and I really noticed it at the net. It was both good and bad as it gave me a lot of what I wanted and none of what I wanted at the same time. What it did very well was provide precise directional control on volleys. It was point-and-shoot in that regard. What it didn’t provide was any kind of ball feel. It is the one racquet I hit with where I could feel the stiffness in the string bed as opposed to the frame. I didn’t get much ball pocketing and it was at that moment standing on the court where the description I had read online and seen in many of the TW racquet reviews of “disconnected” finally clicked. I simply felt disconnected from the ball, despite having good directional control. Volleys outside of the sweet spot felt surprisingly harsh.

Serves:

One word. Bleh. I didn’t feel like I was getting much help at all on my first serves and the string bed stiffness was noticeable. I had good directional control but lost some velocity. I thought the swing weight would have more plow-through than it did and my first serve was coming back a bit more forcefully than I am used to.

Second serves were OK with results very similar to the Aero Pro Drive GT. I liked the thinner beam on second serves as it gave me a bit more confidence (irrational probably) that I could really go up after the topspin/kicker without clunking one off the frame. Second serves did have a bad habit though of landing short in the service box.

Serve Returns:

I had good directional control on my returns but they lacked pop and depth. I’m a chip/block returner and the Blade 98 just felt like it wasn’t doing me any favors. I played a decent amount of doubles with this racquet and had a few returns float on me that left my partner a sitting duck.

Overall:

I really didn’t like this racquet. It just felt underpowered and despite having specs that seemed appealing, the racquet didn’t feel good at all. I did not enjoy the dense 18x20 pattern in this racquet and the sweet spot felt small. However…

This racquet came strung with a full poly. It didn’t have any name/label on it but it was a black textured poly that had a gear-like profile to it. I am seriously wondering if this frame is string-sensitive and would play like a completely different stick with either a hybrid job or a full multi/synthetic gut in it. A part of me debates demoing this racquet again with a better string job, but I don’t want to pay to string up a racquet I might hit only once and still hate. It’s on the list, but pretty close to the bottom.

 

[SmilinBob]

Head Youtek IG Prestige Mid Plus

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Head_YOUTEK_IG_Prestige_Midplus/descpageRCHEAD-HYIPMP.html

First Impressions:

I really liked the look of this racquet and was eager to give it a try after reading many of the reviews on TT as well as the feedback from the TW play testers. It was the second 18x20 string pattern I played, with the Blade 98 being the first. I ended up playing doubles almost exclusively with this racquet.

Groundstrokes:

A lot of people used the word “plush” to describe the feel of the prestige racquets and it is apparent why. The racquet has a nice, soft feel when going through the ball. The sweet spot felt a bit small, but shots outside of the sweet spot didn’t feel harsh, they just lost a bit of pop to them. The weight of the racquet kept the ball deep and I felt like the denser pattern provided good directional control. Slices were effective and stayed low, and while they didn’t float, I wouldn’t call them penetrating either. The only thing I really noticed (which will be a re-occurring theme with this racquet) is that the head felt a lot smaller than 98 sq inches. It actually felt a lot smaller to me than my skunk 6.2 95s.

Volleys:

This racquet’s gold star is for volleys. The tight string pattern gave me great directional control while maintaining that nice plush feeling. The racquet’s heft helped me keep volleys deep and I didn’t feel like I was getting pushed around at the net. The Prestige MP felt maneuverable enough to be effective, if not with just a hint of sluggishness. The only complaint (and really my only one on volleys, in every other volley regard this racquet is an all-star) was that again, the head size felt a lot smaller than advertised.

Serves:

By the time my service game came around I was really hoping this thing would deliver because as a serve-and-volleyer, this racquet’s volleying abilities had already solved half the equation. I felt like I had good directional control on my first serves with adequate pop to them, although I wasn’t getting quite as much on them as my Skunk 6.2s. The racquet had the heft to get through the ball and I could feel where it was during my swing, but it is a heavy racquet and despite a headlight balance, it does take a bit to get the racquet moving.

Second serves were OK as well, but I wasn’t getting a heck of a lot of topspin/kick on my serves. This was the last area where I noticed the head size. It simply feels small. I could sum up second serves, and to a large degree first serves with the Prestige MP like this: You get what you put into it. If you give it a good motion and get good ball contact the result tends to be pretty good. If you don’t however, tough luck. It just isn’t very forgiving on serves.

Serve Returns:

I actually really enjoyed serve returns with this racquet, especially backhand slice chip returns where the ball stayed low. I played doubles almost exclusively with this racquet and felt like I could keep the returns cross-court and deep reliably. I didn’t have quite as much luck keeping the net man as honest as I would have liked as again, this isn’t the most forgiving racquet. I did manage one or two up the alley but I also left a few meatballs up there, much to my partner’s dismay. I quickly went back to the low cross-courters.

Overall:

I really wanted to like this racquet, especially with how it performed at the net and the nice, soft feel. I felt like I had good control of the ball and decent depth. I just wish it was a better racquet to serve with, a little bit more forgiving, and a little bit lighter. I also wish the head size didn’t feel so small. It wasn’t until a few weeks ago I came across a thread on TT that mentioned Head measures size inclusive of the frame, unlike other manufacturers. Small head size mystery solved. As I get back into the sport more, this may be a racquet lineup I come back to, but it’s just a bit too demanding for me at the moment.

 

[SmilinBob]

Wilson Steam BLX 100

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Wilson_BLX_Steam_100/descpageRCWILSON-WS100.html

First Impressions:

I was drawn to the Steam after my experience with the Babolat Pure Drive Roddick Plus and the Wilson Juice Pro. It was a slightly extended length racquet with a 100 sq inch head size that was lighter. Worth a shot, right?

Groundstrokes:

It wasn’t until I hit with the Steam 100 that the description of “modern feeling” really made any sense. The ball felt much different on contact than with my Skunk 6.2s or any of the other racquets I had tried. It wasn’t tinny or hollow like many of the Babolats, but it wasn’t soft or plush either. I don’t want to use the word crisp (I think it’s a bad adjective to describe feel, too much like crunchy) but it did feel firm. Quite firm, actually. I was getting decent pace from the ground and found good depth control. Directional control was good as well and I hit some good angles with it, especially cross court. The one ground stroke I thought was lacking a bit was the backhand slice. The ball seemed to float a little bit and sit up after it bounced.

Volleys:

Much like the Babolats, I did enjoy the extra head size on volleys and found the Steam 100 quite maneuverable. The extra length was much less noticeable though than either the Juice Pro or the Roddick Plus. If I didn’t know it was an extended length racquet I would have assumed it was standard. I felt like I had good directional control but I didn’t like that firm feeling. I got the impression that this was very much a baseliner’s stick as to me it felt like it responded better to being swung rather than punching volleys.

An extra paragraph is necessary here, because the Steam 100 completely changed my racquet search in one shot. I demoed this racquet twice, and the second time I had hit singles with the Pure Drive Roddick Plus for about 90 minutes, then was playing doubles with the Steam 100 and my partner hit a meatball of a second serve. The return came right at my left hip (I’m left handed) so I turned the racquet in for a defensive backhand volley. I caught the ball outside the sweet spot and (being a body volley) I had no leverage with the racquet given my arm position. The shock from the ball was so jarring it sent a searing pain directly up my arm. I couldn’t close my hand for over two hours after that. In fact, I left the court and drove to urgent care thinking I might have torn something the pain was so severe.

Serves:

The Steam 100 served very much like the Aero Pro Drive GT. It didn’t give me much extra zip, but directional control was good on first serves. Despite not feeling like I was getting much pop, my service games were going by smoothly, so my serves were scoring effectively.

Second serves with the steam were very good. The larger head size is noticeable and the racquet has just enough weight in the tip to have an idea of where it’s at. It also felt pretty whippy and delivered a healthy amount of topspin and kick to my second serves.

Serve Returns:

The Steam 100 was a jack-of-all-trades kind of racquet for me on returns. It didn’t do anything particularly well, but did let me play pretty much any return I wanted to with at least acceptable results. The Steam 100 was very maneuverable so I could take quick cuts at second serves, and it was OK at chip/block returns on first serves. My only return complaint was floating slices that sat up a bit when they bounced.

Overall:

Nothing outstandingly bad about this racquet. While I get the impression it is designed for the baseliner, it did allow decent all-court play. It does play very firm. The one area where I would say it was better than average was second serves. This racquet did enough well that I gave it a second demo. It was on the second demo that I hit the body volley. This racquet plays significantly stiffer than the RA rating indicates and that volley was the last shot I’ll ever hit with a Steam 100. Likewise with any stiff Babolat frame (Pure Storm info coming.)

 

[SmilinBob]

Babolat Pure Storm GT

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Babolat_Pure_Storm_GT/descpageRCBAB-BPS.html

First Impressions:

I took a few weeks off after my experience with the Steam 100, then focused on racquets that would play more arm-friendly. The local pro shop suggested the Pure Storm so I gave it a try. This review will be short.

Groundstrokes:

This racquet just didn’t do a heck of a lot for me. I would say that it felt better than the Babolats, particularly the Aero Pro Drive GT, but it didn’t really give me great results. I was hoping for a softer Pure Drive but the Pure Storm just didn’t get the ball as deep in the court. Since I was a fair bit into my racquet demos and had some idea of what I liked and didn’t, I put this racquet down rather quickly. It just did nothing for me.

Volleys:

Volleys felt OK with a lot less of the tinny/hollow feeling of the other Babolats. In some ways, it felt similar on volleys to the Roddick Plus with significantly less pop. The Pure Storm felt maneuverable, but not overly stable on off-center volleys. Directional control was good.

Serves:

I really did not like serving with this racquet much at all. I didn’t get any extra pace on the ball at all. I actually switched back to my old Skunk 6.2s while I was demoing the Pure Storm because I just wasn’t getting any free points on my serve.

Second serves weren’t much better. I could feel where the racquet was in my swing much better than the Aero Pro Drive GT, but my second serve results were mixed. I was getting good topspin/kick but I just wasn’t serving consistently with it.

Serve Returns:

Serve returns were OK, but nothing great. The racquet did feel much better than the Aero Pro Drive GT but seemed to play very similarly. It wasn’t overly effective on chip/block returns but fared better on ones where I could take a cut at the ball.

Overall:

I did like that this felt much better than the other Babolat racquets, but it just didn’t do much to enhance the strengths of my game, which is one of the main focuses I’ve had during the search for a new racquet. I might have still been mentally taking it easy since I was only a few weeks removed from my second run with the Steam 100, but I just have no real desire to hit the Pure Storm again. In fact, after not being really satisfied with any of the Babolat racquets, outside of serving with the Roddick Plus, the Pure Storm has ended my interest in the entire Babolat racquet line.

 

[SmilinBob]

Wilson BLX Six.One 95 16x18

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Wilson_BLX_SixOne_95_16x18/descpageRCWILSON-WSO95O.html

First Impressions:

I decided to give a distant step-relative of my skunk 6.2 a try (I say step relative because it comes from the head-light side of the family) and picked up a demo at the local pro shop. It was a heavy-feeling racquet that the guys at the pro shop suggested would play relatively soft.

Groundstrokes:

I actually felt like this racquet was pretty versatile from the baseline. It did feel powerful and I was getting good depth on my shots. I felt like I could flatten them out a bit more than usual (I play pretty flat by today’s standards as it is) and put some heat on the ball. It had enough heft to really keep backhand slices down with some nice skid on them. While heavy, it only felt slightly sluggish, with what I would consider middle-of-the-road maneuverability. Better than most with the same static weight, but not quite as good as the lighter racquets. I could turn up some nice boomers with the Six.One 95 16x18 much like the Juice Pro, but I found hitting angles was easier with the Six.One. It thought it was a really good racquet from the baseline.

Volleys:

This was a nice volleying racquet with plenty of pop to keep put-away volleys nice and deep. The sweet spot felt pretty big for the head size. The static weight did lead to a bit of loss in maneuverability but made up for it in stability. Directional control felt good too, but I did catch the occasional flier off the string bed. I’m not sure I would blame the racquet though. It played lot like the Prestige MP when volleying, albeit with less control and a bit more pop. I’m only speculating, but I would guess the 18x20 Six.One would play very close to the Prestige MP. The Six.One 16x18 actually probably played closer to my Skunk 6.2s on volleys than any other racquet I demoed, only slightly more sluggish given the greater weight.

Serves:

First serves with this racquet were good. The heft and (seemingly) large sweet spot delivered some good heat on serves up the T, and I really noticed that it was one of the better racquets I have demoed for slice out wide to the ad court (lefty). I did have some trouble getting the wide serve on the deuce side though as my pronation is slightly different (to maintain the same toss) and the weight of the racquet made it feel a bit different.

Second serves were good, but much like the Juice Pro, this is a heavy racquet. It was decently forgiving and did keep second serves deep in the service box, but I noticed that as the games went on my serve effectiveness started to slip. It was after several service games that I started to notice my arm hurting in the same spot as the Steam 100.

Serve Returns:

This racquet played very well for my basic chip/block return style. It had enough static weight to really plow through the ball and slices stayed low and deep. I found it a bit difficult to try and rip a return simply because it is a meaty racquet to get moving around.

Overall:

I enjoyed this racquet but the twinge of pain sort of scared me off. I had a long talk with the pro shop guys about it and settled on giving racquets that were lighter some additional attention. This racquet reminded me quite a bit of the Juice Pro, swapping better volleys with the Six.One instead of the extra heat on first serves of the Juice Pro. The feel was a bit firmer than the Prestige MP but at the same time the racquet was quite a bit more forgiving. If I find the pain in my arm drifts away over time I could see myself coming back to the Six.One 95 16x18. It was a nice racquet that played well for my particular style of game, slightly less impressive than the Juice Pro but more forgiving. If only either of them were faster on the second serve.

 

[SmilinBob]

Wilson BLX Pro Staff 95

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Wilson_BLX_Pro_Staff_95/descpageRCWILSON-WPS95.html

First Impressions:

I entered a tournament and knew I couldn’t play it with my skunk 6.2s given I was down to a single frame and had arm concerns. After talking with the guys at the local pro shop they sent me off with the Pro Staff 95 and Radical Mid Plus. My feedback on these two racquets is based entirely on playing with them in tournament conditions (yep, I played a tourney with two racquets I had never swung before). The Pro Staff had honors off the tee and went to battle in my first match.

Ground Strokes:

This racquet did absolutely no favors for me off the ground. I was on my own. The directional control from the racquet was spectacular but I needed to put every ounce into my shots if I wanted them to have any pace. I was finding good depth with the Pro Staff 95 but it was by hitting the ball much higher over the net. Slices were OK, but did tend to float and sit up on the bounce. I did enjoy the feel though. It was a thin-beamed racquet that played soft. It had a nice muted feel from the ground.

Volleys:

This was an excellent volleying racquet. It was incredibly maneuverable and felt quick at the net. It didn’t feel like I was ever going to be too slow getting the racquet in front of the ball. The sweet spot didn’t feel all that large, but shots outside the sweet spot didn’t feel harsh. I would have liked a little bit more pop on volleys deep into the corners. It wasn’t the most stable racquet on volleys either but again, directional control was amazing. Outside of the Prestige MP, this was probably the best volleying racquet I demoed, being just as accurate but slightly less stable.

Serves:

I don’t think I’ve found a racquet that has quite as much directional control as the Pro Staff 95. I could move my first serve around the box at-will, even out wide to the deuce court as well as a sick slice wide to the ad court (lefty, remember.) The only thing though: Serves had NO heat. I really had to focus on keeping the serves mixed up to keep my first round opponent at-bay. The lack of power also took away the into-the-body serve which I have used to great success over the years. It just didn’t have enough pop.

Second serves were easy to place but again, didn’t have a lot of sauce on them. The racquet delivered good spin though and I was able to serve reliably. I aggressively come in even behind second serves and was a sitting duck a few times when I didn’t get my serve deep enough into the box with this racquet. It just had no pop to it that would keep it deep in the service box.

Serve Returns:

The first round match I played was against a player that had good speed on his serves and this racquet did much better than I expected in returning his pace. My chip/block returns got deep enough, however they did sit up a bit on the bounces. The other matches I played in the tournament with this racquet were against players with weaker serves, and the Pro Staff did no favors on returning them. It just wasn’t a good racquet for my return game. It needed more power.

Overall:

I ended up losing my first round match in the tournament (8-6 tie break in the first, one service break in the second), but played the rest of my matches (except for one) with this racquet. I demolished all my other opponents with it, winning the consolation bracket while never dropping a service game (despite the lack of power). I am very tempted to give this racquet another try with some lead tape somewhere in the hoop to up the swing weight and power level just a bit while giving it a bit more stability at the net. I might even try doing so with the Pro Staff 100, although it is spec’d as slightly stiffer.

 

[SmilinBob]

Head Youtek IG Radical Mid Plus

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Head_YOUTEK_IG_Radical_Midplus/descpageRCHEAD-HYIRMP.html

First Impressions:

This was the second racquet I took into a tourney (yep, I played a tourney with racquets I had never swung before) and after a first round loss with the Pro Staff 95, switched over to the Radical MP hoping for a little more pop. I chose the Radical MP for the soft flex and light weight.

Groundstrokes:

The racquet did have a bit more power than the Pro Staff 95, but not a lot. The racquet had good directional control and played pretty well with my flatter strokes. Depth control was OK, again similar to the Pro Staff 95 where I found depth by increasing my net clearance. My misses were mostly short and I did dump a handful of shots into the net when trying to hit with a bit more pop down the lines or tighter angles cross-court.

Volleys:

This was an OK volleying racquet. I didn’t feel like it had the directional control of the Pro Staff 95, but it did a much better job on deep volleys to the corners. It felt a bit more stable than the Pro Staff 95 while still staying maneuverable. The one dislike I had on volleys was the string pattern. The 18x20 pattern felt boardy and stiff. I felt a bit disconnected from the ball, similar to yet better than the Blade 98. If anything I would have liked a bit more ball pocketing. There’s one other thing I REALLY noticed when volleying: I do NOT like the Head grip shape. I read a little about the different grip shape for Head racquets on TT but dismissed it as one of those over-sensitive things. Wrong on my part. It felt WAY different. I didn’t notice it nearly as much on the Prestige MP or Extreme Pro 2.0 for some reason, but I really did on the Radical MP. Maybe it was the grip under the over grip I put on it, I’m not sure, but the shape was more pronounced with the Radical.

Serves:

My first serves with this racquet were pretty good, but still lacking in power compared to my old Skunk 6.2s. Directional control was good and I was able to move my serves around OK, but not as consistently as with the Pro Staff 95. It was on my first serves though where I again notices the 18x20 string bed. I just didn’t like how it felt when flattening out shots. Near the end of the match the same spot on my arm that hurt from the Steam 100/Babolats began to hurt again.

Second serves were good but I didn’t serve all that consistently with the Radical MP. I gave away a few free points on double faults and short serves that were easy for my opponent to turn on. I gave up one service break in the match but got it back on the very next game.

Serve Returns:

Nothing really notable about returns, but nothing all that bad either. I wouldn’t call the Radical MP the best chip/block returning racquet, but it probably wasn’t the worst either. Backhand slice returns weren’t that great, as the ball stayed low in the air (I think the tighter pattern helped) but tended to sit up a bit when it bounced. Otherwise my returns were pretty middle-of-the-road. Given it was a tournament, I didn’t go for too many return winners or aggressive pokes at the ball as it really isn’t a strength of my game.

Overall:

The Radical MP was an OK racquet and I did win the match I played with it 6-2, 7-6 (5). I ended up going back to the Pro Staff 95 for the remainder of the tournament as I felt it had better directional control on shots, especially serves, and was a better volleying racquet. You learn a lot playing with racquets in tournaments and I thought the Pro Staff 95 gave me a better chance to win. If the grip shape wasn’t funky I would probably give the Radical Pro with a more open pattern a try hoping for better ball pocketing and a less stiff string bed.

 

[SmilinBob]

Wilson BLX Six.One Team

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Wilson_BLX_SixOne_Team/descpageRCWILSON-WSOT.html

First Impressions:

After the tourney I asked one of the guys in the local pro shop if there was a love child of the Six.One 95 16x18 and the Pro Staff 95. He handed me the Six.One Team. It almost is said love child.

Groundstrokes:

This was a light, very fast racquet from the ground. It was noticeably more powerful than the Pro Staff 95 yet still light and whippy enough to hit some nice sharp angles cross-court. It did lack the plow-through of its heavier Six.One 95 16x18 sibling which made slices float and sit up when they bounced. Depth control was OK, and I was able to get the ball deep, but not nearly with the pace of consistency as the Juice Pro, Six.One 16x18, or my old Skunk 6.2s yet it was not as loopy as the Pro Staff 95. It really was somewhere about halfway in between.

Volleys:

After demoing so many racquets, I wasn’t expecting quite the stability this frame had. It was nothing compared to the Prestige MP but still felt solid enough, although hard shots did push the racquet around a bit, due to its very light weight. It delivered noticeably more pop on volleys than the Pro Staff 95, especially volleys deep into the corners, but sacrificed the amazing directional control of the Pro Staff 95 in the process. Control was still very good, just not equally so. Maneuverability was really good.

Serves:

First serves were good with more pop than the Pro Staff 95, but nothing compared to my old Skunk 6.2s or some of the other higher-powered and/or heavier racquets I have demoed. The racquet was fast through contact. I was able to move serves around pretty well, with the only one giving me any difficulty being the wide serve to the deuce court (lefty remember). It is the serve I struggle with the most with any racquet.

Second serves were good too, but much like many of the Babolats, I tended to “lose” the racquet during my motion. It was difficult to tell where the tip of the racquet was. Despite that, I did get decent results with a second serve that was much better than with the Pro Staff 95. It was finding spots deeper in the box and had good spin, but still would generate a short meatball serve every so often.

Serve Returns:

It’s not a spectacular returning racquet but I actually enjoyed it more than I thought. My chip/block return game was much like any of the other lighter racquets I have demoed with the challenge being avoiding the floaters and/or short balls. What I enjoyed though was this racquet was whippy enough I actually had a little more confidence in playing more aggressively on the returns. My results were mixed as I hit a few wicked cross-courters but missed a few down the lines as well. An interesting return racquet in a way I wasn’t expecting.

Overall:

To my surprise, I really enjoyed the Six.One Team. I thought it almost lived up to the love child I was looking for, being a Pro Staff 95 that played with more power. Unfortunately it lost a little of the precision in the process. My only complaint was that it was not the strongest first serve racquet and I wished it had a bit more to offer on the flat heaters. This may be a good platform racquet that could do some amazing things with a little bit of lead in the hoop, much like I did to my Skunk 6.2s. I did find it to be comfortable on my arm and play soft too. I demoed the racquet multiple times and it was a tempting purchase. I would highly recommend this racquet to others looking for one in a similar spec range, especially considering how it felt on the arm.

 

[SmilinBob]

Prince EXO3 Tour Team

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Prince_EXO3_Tour_Team_100/descpageRCPRINCE-PEX3TT.html

First Impressions:

I demoed this racquet at the same time I hit with the Six.One Team. I was never a fan of Prince racquets in the past but the local pro shop guys really recommended it given my likes and dislikes of other racquets I had demoed. The Swiss cheese head/grommet holes was a bit of a mind-F at first.

Groundstrokes:

Of any racquet I demoed, this one was more different than any other. I had no similar racquet to compare it against. The one thing I really noticed from the baseline was that I could swing with reckless abandon and this racquet kept the ball in the court. It was a very low powered racquet that was difficult to get the ball deep unless I kept telling myself to swing harder. The racquet responded very well to huge cuts at the ball with great spin from both wings. It had a nice soft feeling too. Spinny strokes seemed to work better than trying to flatten out harder shots. For just hitting baseline rallies, this racquet was more FUN than any racquet I’ve ever hit. I was actually grinning while warming up with it.

Volleys:

The EXO3 Tour Team just wasn’t a great volleying racquet. The power level is low and despite having a similar weight as the Six.One Team, I felt like I was getting pushed around quite a bit with it on heavier balls and it felt significantly less stable. I could really feel the flex of the racquet on volleys though and really enjoyed the nice, soft feeling from the frame and string bed. I’m a believer in the ports or whatever they are called. Directional control was good but volleys lacked pop.

Serves:

First serves with the EXO3 Tour Team was like hitting a marshmallow with a golf club (if you haven’t, give it a try.) My flat serves had absolutely no heat on them at all. Directional control was OK, but not stellar and I did have trouble getting the serve wide to the deuce court (lefty.) I got absolutely no free points on my first serve which just isn’t acceptable with my serve-and-volley game. I rely on my first serve to win games. This was easily the worst first serving racquet I have demoed.

Second serves were better, but this racquet, like many of the other lighter frames, just seemed to get “lost” during my service motion. The racquet did put excellent spin on the ball though and second serves were similar to groundstrokes in that I could really swing hard at the ball without worrying about it sailing on me. The racquet almost demands hard swings. The downside of second serves is they were consistently short in the box, which left the ball sitting up for returners.

Serve Returns:

I had to completely change my return game with the EXO3 Tour Team and abandon my chip/block returns, really trying to take a crack at the ball. The racquet just had no pop to get the ball deep when chipping the ball back into the court and it was pushed around by harder first serves. Swinging away though was fun and I did have a few returns surprise me, particularly a few sharp cross-courters.

Overall:

If I was a baseline player I might seriously consider going with the EXO3 Tour Team with a much higher powered string in it or the regular 16x18 EXO3 Tour. The spin off the racquet was amazing and swinging away with near reckless abandon and watching the ball stay in was pretty fun. However as a serve-and-volleyer, the lack of volley performance and non-existent power when serving was the deal breaker for me. It just didn’t fit my game well. Ending on a positive note though, it was a very comfortable racquet that played VERY soft and I would recommend the EXO3 Tour Team (and from what I read online, most of the EXO3 Tour line) to anybody with a history of wrist/elbow/shoulder issues.

 

[SmilinBob]

Wilson BLX Tour (2012/Orange Edition)

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Wilson_BLX_Tour/descpageRCWILSON-WTB.html

First Impressions:

When I took the demo of the Six.One Team back, I asked the guys at the local shop if they had a racquet that was more of a love child between the Juice Pro and the Pro Staff 95 (instead of the BLX Six.One 16x18 + Pro Staff 95) and they told me about the BLX Tour. It was out on another demo that some idiot kept two weeks longer than allotted but I finally got my hands on it when it came back.

Groundstrokes:

I thought, given similar weight to the Six.One Team, that groundstrokes would play somewhat similar with the BLX Tour, however I was quickly proven wrong. For whatever reason the BLX Tour was a much more powerful racquet and I had no trouble keeping the ball deep in the court. I thought control with the racquet was good too, and I was able to hit shots both cross-court and up-the-line. Slices weren’t bad either and floated just a little bit. Flattening out shots worked well and I could hit with pace easily.

Volleys:

This racquet really shined at the net for me. The sweet spot felt big and the racquet had great feel on volleys, not too squishy but not firm at all, very reminiscent of my Skunk 6.2s. Deep volleys to the corner really stood out to me and despite the light weight, the racquet felt relatively stable. Even though the racquet is only ¼” longer than standard, it was one of those racquets where I really noticed the extra length and I felt like I had good reach at the net. I liked the 16x20 string pattern as it still felt good yet was also well-controlled. If anything, my only complaint would be that the head size seemed to feel a bit narrow from 3 to 9.

Serves:

Of any racquet I served with, on first serves overall, this was one of the best. Directional control was outstanding and again I could really feel the extra ¼” that gave the sensation of hitting the ball down into the court. I was able to get plenty of pace on serves up the T as well and this racquet earned me plenty of aces and un-returnable serve points. It was light weight, but I think the extra length and even balance made it easier to feel where the tip of the racquet was during my motion.

Second serves were good too, staying deep in the box and I still had good control moving serves around. The sweet spot felt big and I was getting plenty of kick on second serves. I had no issue coming in behind all my serves. I played two sets of doubles with this racquet and on my service games, I only lost ONE point. (yes, point. Not game, point.) It was a double-fault. Not a single serve that went in, be it first or second, earned the return team a single point.

Serve Returns:

The BLX Tour reminded me of why I liked my Skunk 6.2s so much: The weight out in the hoop gave my chip/block returns enough punch to keep them deep and somewhat effective. I’m admittedly a weak returner but the BLX Tour didn’t hurt me at all, and in fact, the ever-so-slight extra reach helped me get to a few serves with enough string on them to get a return back over the net.

Overall:

The next day I returned the demo racquet and ordered a pair. This racquet was just that good. I got a call back later that day however that they couldn’t get any stock for the BLX Tour in my grip size and Wilson wasn’t shipping the racquet any longer. Even TW was out of the size I wanted (and I didn’t want to mess around with building up the grip.) They have recently gone on super sale on TW which might force me to change my mind, but in the meantime I will search for a racquet that has a head that doesn’t feel quite as narrow. I think this is probably the most under-rated stick in Wilson’s catalog, especially for those looking for something that is soft/plush feeling, lighter, and easy on the arm.

 

[SmilinBob]

ProKennex 7G

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/ProKennex_Kinetic_Pro_7G/descpageRCPK-P7G.html

First Impressions:

I was excited to try this racquet as it gets a lot of love on TT for being a good all-around racquet that is soft and comfortable on the arm. ProKennex is not a brand the local pro shops carry and was the driver behind my first jump into the TW demo program.

Groundstrokes:

With the extra length, decent static weight, and a swing weight up near 330, the 7G really plows through the ball off the ground and I had no trouble keeping the ball deep in the court. Slices stayed nice and low with a good penetrating skid on the bounce. I had a little bit of trouble with tighter cross-court angles and wasn’t getting a lot of spin, but that could be due to the strings in the racquet. I did notice different success on each side though. My backhand was really heavy and had a lot of pace on it. My forehand however felt sluggish and my timing was a bit late. The 7G does have a nice, muted feeling when hitting the ball.

Volleys:

I could really feel the soft, muted contact on volleys. The racquet felt comfortable and the sweet spot felt plenty big. Volleys had a lot of pop on them and punching them deep to the corners was effective. The extra length was noticeable at the net. The 7G however didn’t feel all that maneuverable to me and a bit sluggish. One of the strongest aspects of volleying with the 7G is that the racquet was extremely stable.

Serves:

I was really excited to see what the extra ½ inch would do on first serves and had high expectations for the 7G. I was quickly disappointed though: The 7G felt extremely sluggish and slow during my service motion. The racquet felt much heavier than I would like when going up after the ball. It felt much slower than the Wilson Juice Pro or Babolat Pure Drive Roddick Plus. I switched racquets about half-way through a service game while playing doubles because I couldn’t get my timing down. Later the next day I went out to just practice serves and while I managed to improve my timing, I felt like I was losing pace because the racquet for me just swung slow. It was hard to gauge control on the serve given the issues with my timing and the sluggishness of the racquet.

Second serves were a similar story and it was hard to control my serves with the drastic difference in timing this racquet required. My second serves were missing long as my body was getting up to the ball on time while my arm and the racquet lagged behind. Spin was on the lower side of middle-of-the-road but much like ground strokes, I imagine that could be improved with different strings.

Serve Returns:

The weight of the racquet and the good plow-through I was getting kept serve returns nice and deep. I noticed the extra reach on a few returns where I was stretched out wide and managed to get the ball back over the net and make my opponent play another ball. My chip/block returns were merely acceptable though and I wasn’t threatening the server with any breaks. Getting the racquet around on meat ball second serve returns was difficult as the racquet was just slow for me.

Overall:

I was really expecting the 7G to be the possible holy grail and was disappointed it didn’t live up to my expectations. The racquet does feel wonderful, deep volleys were great and my backhands were really solid on both slice and topspin shots. I just couldn’t get over the sluggishness of the racquet on my forehand and serve and didn’t feel like the racquet was helping me win any points.

 

[SmilinBob]

ProKennex Ki 5x

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/ProKennex_Ionic_Ki_5x/descpageRCPK-KI5XN.html

First Impressions:

The Ki 5x and 7G, despite being similar spec’d racquets seem to have a fair number of people who strongly prefer one over the other so I figured it would be good to demo them together. The Ki 5x had slightly different strings in it but was the same gauge and felt like it played similarly.

Groundstrokes:

I hit with the 7G prior to the Ki 5x and expected similar results. I was pleasantly surprised as for some reason, be it actual or imagined, the Ki 5x played a bit faster for me. My backhand shots, both slice and topspin were very similar as the 7G but my forehand felt a bit faster and I was getting better results during points with the 5x. It was a very comfortable racquet from the ground with a soft, powerful feel on all shots. Tight cross-court angles were a little difficult but much like the 7G, I imagine spin could be improved with different strings.

Volleys:

The Ki 5x was a solid racquet at the net for me. Unlike a few other comments on TT, I did not notice the racquet feeling dead at the top of the hoop at all, even when I managed to catch a few volleys higher on the string bed. Deep volleys were nice and penetrating and I did like the extra reach. The racquet felt a little bit quicker than the 7G at the net, but not by much. I would not call either ProKennex racquet maneuverable. The Ki 5x was excellent when I had to play a few defensive volleys, both stretched out and into the body, blocking the ball back solidly. Much like the 7G, the Ki 5x was rock-solid at the net with great stability.

Serves:

First serves with the Ki 5x were very similar to the 7G, if not slightly better. The racquet didn’t feel quite as sluggish but still felt slow and my timing with this racquet wasn’t much improved over the 7G. I felt like I had a little bit better control however and did get a few serves out wide to the deuce court (lefty). Given the timing issues with both racquets (which may be due to the noticeable extra length) I focused on serves down the T with the Ki 5x and hit a few solidly. When I went out the next day to practice serves I did start serving better with the Ki 5x and given more time with the racquet I think I could get my timing down better with it than the 7G. Again, the slightly faster feel may be real or imagined, I’m not sure, but I was more confident with the Ki 5x.

Second serves were also much like the 7G with my typical miss being long of the service box. Spin and kick was a bit better with the Ki 5x, but that may be due to having different strings in it than the 7G. I thought the extra length might be a bigger help than it was.

Serve Returns:

Serve returns with the 7G and Ki 5x were almost identical with the two strong areas being weight and plow-through to keep my returns deep, and the extra reach made getting to good serves just a bit easier to get back over the net, forcing my opponent to play one more shot. My best success on returns with the Ki 5x was cross-court slice chip returns which stayed nice and low, rarely floating.

Overall:

I liked the Ki 5x a little bit better than the 7G simply because it felt very similar but just a little bit quicker and more maneuverable. I think if this were a racquet I could adjust to over a longer period of time, it might be one I could have success with. Echoing many others on TT, it seemed to me like a racquet that was good at most everything but not really great at anything. I would highly recommend either ProKennex to anybody with arm/shoulder injury history.

 

[SmilinBob]

Pacific X Force

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Pacific_X_Force/descpageRCPACIFIC-PXF.html

First Impressions:

I had never really heard of Pacific racquets but was familiar with the Fischer name, despite never playing a Fischer racquet before. After many comments on the TT boards about the buttery feel of the racquets and looking at the specs, particularly racquet stiffness, I figured it was worth a try. When it arrived I gave it the good ol’ bounce test and enjoyed the “thud” feeling of the ball, as opposed to other racquets that “ping”. It was definitely a muted feeling.

Groundstrokes:

From the first hit the Pacific/Fischer feel really jumped out. Even though the X Force was a light racquet and for me was a fast swinger, it really felt like it “thunked” the ball with a muted, almost dull feeling on contact. Ball contact with the X Force felt similar to much heavier racquets as opposed to one closer to its weight. I had good depth control with the X Force and the soft feeling encouraged me to take a healthy cut at the ball without worrying about sailing the ball long. Slices were OK and stayed low on the bounce but I did have a few tend to float in the air on me. Cross-court angles were good with this racquet. If the X Force gets a gold star, for me it was hitting approach shots. It is a well-controlled frame and I felt like I could hit through the ball when coming to the net or knife a low slice. I had lots of confidence on aggressive approach shots.

Volleys:

The X Force was a nice volleying racquet and the soft feel really stood out at the net. The X Force felt very maneuverable yet with enough pop to get volleys deep with pace. Directional control was pretty good with results that were similar to what I had with the Wilson BLX Six.One Team. Touch volleys were good too and the sweet spot felt plenty big. My only complaint with the X Force at the net was on defensive volleys and half-volleys (which I hit a lot as a serve-and-volleyer) where the racquet felt a little bit unstable.

Serves:

I had great control on first serves and enough pop to get a few heaters up the T with pretty good effectiveness. Even though the X Force was a light racquet, I didn’t feel like it got quite as “lost” in my service motion as some of the others in a similar weight class. I was able to get slices out wide to the ad court (lefty) easily, and that was probably one of my favorite serves to hit with the X Force. I managed a few good ones out wide to the deuce court too, but it was a bit more difficult, however that is also the serve I find hardest for me to hit.

Second serves were good with plenty of topspin/kick on them. It was easy to really go up after the ball with the racquet and control was good. If anything I would have liked serves to get a bit deeper into the service box, but it was a small complaint as I felt like the X Force kept the ball deeper than other lighter racquets such as the Six.One Team .

Serve Returns:

The weak area of the X Force for me was on serve returns. Despite hitting what might be the craziest backhand cross-courter of my life, I didn’t have good results with the X Force. My chip/block returns were merely OK, however while playing a lot of doubles with the X Force, I gave up a few too many easy poaches. I started getting a little more aggressive on returns and had mixed results with a few good shots mixed with some downright terrible ones. Slice returns were OK but did have a tendency to float when I tried to get them deeper into the court.

Overall:

I enjoyed playing with the X Force, finding the sweet spot to be plenty large, decent spin on ground strokes and serves, with enough pop to keep the ball deep from the baseline and add some zip to serves and great feel. I would have liked a little bit more out of the X Force at the net though. Of all the racquets I’ve demoed, I would put this in the top four or five as it works well from all areas of the court, despite not being an absolute master of any one particular thing.

 

[SmilinBob]

Slazenger V98 Team

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Slazenger_V98_Team/descpageRCSLAZ-SV98T.html

First Impressions:

I was drawn to try the V98 Team for two reasons: 1) On TWU it has one of the (if not the) largest sweet spot for the head size and 2) A few comments from the TW play testers about its playability with multi strings, comfort, and a racquet for those that have played older Wilson Hammer racquets to look at. It showed up brand new with wrapping and labeling still on the grip with a stenciled black string in it (with small printing that read SZR VIGOR 16G…Or at least that’s what it looked like.)

Groundstrokes:

The V98 Team fit in a similar bucket as the EXO3 Tour Team: It was simply in a class by itself. The V98 had a very unique feel to it that I can only describe as very bright and lively. Contact wasn’t dull or thud-like and the racquet felt very alive, yet completely different than other “modern-feeling” racquets such as the Babolats, the Wilson Steam 100, or the Head Extreme Pro 2.0 that I have demoed. The V98 Team didn’t feel soft (like the Pacific X Force) yet at the same time didn’t feel firm either. The racquet had a difficult feeling to describe. I really liked the even balance of the racquet and was able to keep shots nice and deep from both sides with really effective and penetrating slices. The V98 Team was a very spin-friendly racquet for me and tight angles were good. Like the EXO3 Tour Team, the V98 Team was one of those racquets that put a smile on my face from the baseline. It just had that something to it.

Volleys:

The V98 Team was a good volleying racquet that was very maneuverable, light, yet surprisingly stable. I had good directional control and the V98 Team had enough pop to drive deep volleys to the corners with plenty of pace. The sweet spot felt nice and big and shots outside of the center of the string bed didn’t feel jarring at all, mostly sacrificing pace. I played a lot of doubles with this racquet and wasn’t volleying particularly well that day but one areas that stood out was I had a few great poaches on serve returns, with the quickness and stability of the racquet helping get good results.

Serves:

First serves with this racquet were reminiscent of one of my favorite things about my old Skunk 6.2s: The head-heavy feel really let me know where the racquet was during my service motion and once the racquet started up at the ball it just went right through it. I hit some real bombs up the T with the V98 Team. Unlike my old Skunk 6.2s however, the racquet felt much faster through my motion and was one of the best racquets I demoed for moving first serves out wide to either court with good pace on them.

Second serves were good too as the V98 Team’s somewhat thinner beam and big sweet spot let me go up after the ball confidently. Control with the V98 Team was good on second serves and I was able to keep them deeper in the service box which allowed me to come in behind them with confidence. I was getting fantastic topspin/kick on the ball and was able to use a kick/twist serve to a righty’s backhand that jumped back into the body with amazing results. It wasn’t as reliable as the Babolat Pure Drive Roddick Plus, but was one of the best racquets on second serves I have demoed.

Serve Returns:

Serve returns started as a mixed bag until I started to figure out what shots played to the strengths of the racquet and my game. Chip returns from the backhand side worked well as the plow-through of the racquet kept the ball from floating. I was less successful on the forehand side with chip/block returns and started swinging a bit freer, and found a very effective medium between chipping the ball back and a full, aggressive swing. I would take a short backswing and really accelerate through contact up and through the ball. I hit some lasers for outright winners on returns that way.

Overall:

This was one of my favorite racquets out of all those I have demoed. The V98 Team had a feel that was all its own and played amazing from the baseline. It was light and maneuverable at the net yet surprisingly stable with a large sweet spot. The V98 Team had enough pop that I could really blast some first serves and come in confidently behind second serves. I’m really struggling mentally between purchasing either the V98 Team or the Wilson BLX Tour. The V98 Team is the more forgiving racquet, yet the BLX Tour was a first serve dream despite playing narrower from 3 to 9.

 

[SmilinBob]

Dunlop Biomimetic M3.0

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Dunlop_Biomimetic_M30/descpageRCDUNLOP-DM30.html

First Impressions:

In reading a few threads on TT, I discovered that the M3.0 and the Slazenger V98 Team might actually be the same frame. Despite that, I hadn’t seen any head-to-head comparisons and the TW reviews of each were quite different. I decided I would compare-and-contrast both, especially after how much I liked the V98 Team.

Groundstrokes:

I could feel the similarities between both frames on ground strokes almost instantly. I again am left struggling quite how to describe the feel of the racquet other than to say it felt quite alive, almost springy, yet not tinny or flexy. I was able to keep the ball deep in the court and hitting angles worked well. The M3.0 was a little bit more head-light with a lower swing weight, and I could feel it when trying to roll over a really tight cross-court shot. Slice shots worked well too and were more penetrating than I was expecting staying nice and low without floating with some good skid on the bounce.

Volleys:

The M3.0 felt very maneuverable at the net. The racquet felt quick and I had no trouble reacting to hard shots. Deep volleys felt solid and had plenty of pop on them. Direction control was about equal with the V98 Team. The only thing I noticed on volleys, which was a consistent feature of the M3.0 versus the V98 Team, was that shots outside of the sweet spot had considerable drop-off in pace and control and had a little bit more of a jarring feel. The upper hoop of the racquet felt deader than the V98 Team. While feeling more unstable, the racquet did feel a little quicker, something I attribute to the more head-light balance, even though the balance difference is slight.

Serves:

First serves with the M3.0 were good. For whatever reason, I wasn’t finding as much pace when hitting flat serves up the T when compared to the V98 Team. The best serve with the M3.0 that I was consistently hitting was a really biting slice out wide to the ad court (lefty) that had a lot of movement on it. I was able to move the ball around the box well, even out wide to the deuce court, with good control. There was a very noticeable issue with the M3.0 on serves: The butt cap had hardly any flare to it. I grip the racquet very low, with my pinkie wrapped around the end of the racquet and my ring finger locked in by the flare of the butt cap. It felt like the racquet could fly out of my hand on every swing.

Second serves worked really well. The racquet was quick through my motion yet didn’t feel like it was getting lost at all like the Six.One Team and some of the other lighter racquets I’ve demoed. I found really good spin and some nice topspin/kick serves. Depth on seconds serves was simply OK though, leaving a handful a bit short in the box. The M3.0 was a good second serve racquet for me, only leaving serves a little shorter in the box when compared to the V98 Team.

Serve Returns:

The short accelerating stroke that I found luck with using the V98 worked equally as well with the M3.0. It was a fun racquet to return with. My more regular chip/block return game was merely OK, however I did find that when really stretched to get after a serve, the M3.0 offered a better “flick” at the ball than the V98 Team and I managed to get a few serves I thought were going to get past me back over the net. I did notice that much like on volleys, shots outside the sweet spot were noticeably worse and the M3.0 didn’t feel as stable as the V98 Team.

Overall:

I liked the Dunlop M3.0, especially the feel of the racquet when hitting from the ground and when catching volleys in the sweet spot. I thought it performed pretty well from all areas of the court playing very similar to the V98 Team, however I thought the V98 Team was a better racquet. I liked the better stability, bigger sweet spot, and higher swing weight of the V98 Team. The lack of flare on the butt cap on the M3.0 was also very uncomfortable for me. Is that a Dunlop thing?

 

[SmilinBob]

Wilson Steam 99S

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Wilson_Steam_99_S/descpageRCWILSON-STM99S.html

First Impressions:

Was there any real way to not demo the 99S with all the hype it has received? Simple answer: No. I picked up a demo from my local pro shop after they convinced me that the open pattern made the racquet play much softer than the specs would indicate.

Groundstrokes:

The baseline is what the Steam 99S was built for, at least that’s how it felt to me. The open pattern was definitely more comfortable than the racquet stiffness and a full bed of poly would normally play. The racquet felt more solid than I was expecting with good plow-through. Two things really stood out from the baseline for me: The racquet hit the ball much higher over the net than I’m used to, yet still had plenty of spin to bring it down into the court. The 99S did give me an anxious feeling with a hint of “I hope that doesn’t go long” worry. The second thing I really noticed is that the 99S didn’t respond well to flatter shots, and there was a fine line for me between spin monster that would dive the ball into the court (and short into the court without the additional net clearance) vs. flatter shots where the 99S was kind of a rocket launcher for me. When hit well though, the spin is kind of like tennis crack. Depth control was difficult and spin-dependent, but I think with enough time I could adjust to the uniqueness of the string bed.

Volleys:

The 99S was much more stable at the net than I was expecting and punched through the ball well. Keeping volleys deep was easy. Control on volleys was mediocre though and I had mixed success when really going after the corners. Control was simply unpredictable. The 99S was middle-of-the-road when it came to maneuverability, but the racquet didn’t feel sluggish. I found half-volleys to be a distinct weakness with the 99S as the ball would come off the racquet somewhat unpredictably, even on two similar shots that felt like they contacted the string bed the same.

Serves:

First serves were a very mixed bag for me and I’m still not sure what to think. The 99S may have been one of the best racquets for moving the ball out wide to each corner, with the spin being pretty amazing. Slices out wide to the ad court (lefty) were ridiculous and just ran away out wide. Topspin/kick serves wide to the deuce court jumped high and wide. Where I’m left scratching my head was serves up the T. When really flattening out my serves, the ball lacked pace and went through the air in a way I can only describe as fluttering. Flat serves were just not heavy and lacked pace. Control on first serves, despite the great movement on the ball, was only fair, and I found that catching the ball on different parts of the string bed generated noticeably different results.

Second serves had lots of topspin/kick on them and had plenty of jump on them. The racquet had enough weight in the hoop that it was easy to feel where the racquet was in my motion and it felt like it swung quickly. Control was similar to first serves with a certain level of unpredictability. I ended up focusing second serves on jumpers into the body, which was effective but became predictable and I watched a few returns go passing by me after several service games.

Serve Returns:

Another area where I thought the 99S shined was on serve returns, simply because I could swing much harder than I typically do and keep the ball in the court. My more typical chip/block return game wasn’t great with the 99S but I was still able to keep the ball deep in the court. Slice returns were better than I was expecting though and the ball didn’t float (which is what I was expecting.)

Overall:

A really fun racquet with a surprising amount of stability and plow-through that lives up to the spin hype when taking a good cut at the ball. However as a serve-and-volleyer, the lack of predictability and control was the deal-breaker for me.

 

[SmilinBob]

Wilson Blade 98 16x19

http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Wilson_Blade_98_16x19/descpageRCWILSON-B9816.html

First Impressions:

The guys at the local pro shop talked me into demoing this racquet. I was looking for the Prestige S but they didn’t have one to demo. Spec-wise, the Blade 98 16x19 was very similar. It is a bad-***** looking stick too. It was strung up with a hybrid of Luxilon 4G and a synthetic gut, both 16 gauge.

Groundstrokes:

Of all the racquets in a similar weight range that I have demoed, the Blade 98 16x19 was by far the easiest to keep the ball deep. I was quite surprised at the stability and plow-through of the racquet. The Blade 98 16x19 felt like a much heavier racquet than it actually was. It almost was comparable to the Wilson BLX Juice Pro for me in keeping the ball deep in the court with plenty of pop from both sides. I also found lots of spin and hitting angles worked well. Slices were spectacular with a nice, low flight that ended with a really low skidding bounce. My only consistent miss with the Blade 98 16x19 was balls long from my backhand side.

Volleys:

Two words describe the Blade 98 16x19 for me at the net: Rock solid. The racquet was incredibly stable on volleys and had a soft yet substantial feeling on contact. Maneuverability was very good and the racquet felt quick, albeit slightly slower than some of the other lightweight racquets I have demoed. Directional control for me was outstanding and I would argue that it was every bit as controlled as the Pro Staff 95. Off-center shots lost a little bit of pop but the racquet still felt solid and I never felt pushed around, even on harder shots. The Blade 98 16x19 was also easily the best half-volley racquet I’ve demoed. I would still say the Prestige MP was the best volleying racquet in general, but the Blade 98 16x19 is not far behind. It was like a much more stable and powerful version of the Pro Staff 95, without sacrificing anything else. It was simply a fantastic racquet at the net.

Serves:

My first serves with the Blade 98 16x19 were good. I was able to hit with plenty of pace up the T and had some great heaters up the middle in the ad court. I was surprised by the spin of the racquet too and moving the ball out wide to the ad court (lefty) worked very well. Moving serves out wide to the deuce court was a little more difficult (it is typically the serve that most troubles me) but I was able to keep the returner honest. Serves into the body had good jump. I would again compare the Blade 98 16x19 to the Pro Staff 95, adding considerable pace while maintaining fantastic control.

Second serves were good and again the racquet surprised me with very good spin and I was getting plenty of jump on my topspin/kick second. I was able to consistently keep second serves deep in the box and felt comfortable coming in behind almost every serve. The racquet had enough heft in the hoop that I could feel where the tip was throughout my service motion and I never felt lost. Control on second serves was good but not great. Of any racquet I have demoed, the Blade 98 16x19 was the one that came closest in feel and performance as my old Skunk 6.2s on both first and second serves, slightly more forgiving than the Skunks with slightly less pace.

Serve Returns:

My chip/block return game worked very well with the Blade 98 16x19. Slice returns didn’t float and stayed low on the bounce. Despite the static weight, the racquet absorbed pace on harder serves well and was maneuverable enough to get out in front of most serves. I was impressed by some success I had with more aggressive returns. While feeling similar to my old Skunk 6.2s, the Blade 98 16x19 was noticeably more maneuverable.

Overall:

Of all the racquets I have demoed, the Blade 98 16x19 was the closest in feel to my old Skunk 6.2s. While giving up a little bit of pace on first serves, the racquet was more maneuverable and had much better control from all areas of the court. Directional control on volleys and depth control on groundstrokes were both outstanding while the racquet felt very comfortable on my arm. While not as great on first serves as the BLX Tour (2012) and not as aggressively fun as the V98 Team, it was more forgiving than the BLX Tour and more stable than the V98 Team. It may be the best all-around racquet I’ve demoed even though it wasn’t on my radar despite the TT boards and TW reviews.

 

[counterpuncher]

Interesting to hear your thoughts and experiences, some were the same as mine, some differed. A couple more racquets that might be worth a demo from what you have described are the IG Radical Pro, Donnay Pro One and Prince Rebel 98.

 

[acura9927]

I enjoyed your reviews and thanks for the very hard work. I agree with your playtest of the Extreme 2.0 and how it sailed on groundstrokes. I am low level player and I assume you are high level so maybe its not just me!

 

[Ross K]

Really enjoyed these reviews SmilinBob. Reminds me of the days when more people used to post such threads on TT. Thanks, and keep 'em coming!

Q. Which frames in your opinion were best simply for consistently hitting ground stokes with depth, power and penetration, for hitting through the court, for unerringly booming out to the baseline haha?!

 

[Federerkblade]

Great Reviews SmilinBob . Pls review the Wilson Blade 104 ???

 

[SmilinBob]

Interesting to hear your thoughts and experiences, some were the same as mine, some differed. A couple more racquets that might be worth a demo from what you have described are the IG Radical Pro, Donnay Pro One and Prince Rebel 98.

My very first racquet was a Donnay. It was a black wood junior racquet with some weird blue-ish boxed coloring on it. It looked exactly like this only with blue/green boxes instead of red/orange ones:

I thought seriously about the Radical Pro, but the odd grip shape sort of turned me away. However I am playing this weekend and the local pro shop has demos of both the Radical Pro and Rebel 98. Maybe I'll pick them up and add a few more reviews. As for the Donnay, specs look interesting. If I end up doing another demo order from TW, I'll add it to the list.

 

[SmilinBob]

The Boomers

Q. Which frames in your opinion were best simply for consistently hitting ground stokes with depth, power and penetration, for hitting through the court, for unerringly booming out to the baseline haha?!

For pure, unadulterated power from the baseline and only the baseline, I'd probably rank the sticks I've demoed like this:

1) Extreme Pro 2.0
2) Roddick Plus
3) Juice Pro

Now, when you add the x-factor of control on there, I'd change it up:

1) Juice Pro
2) Either the Six.One 95 16x18, regular Pure Drive, or the Blade 98 16x19
3) Roddick Plus

Both the Extreme 2.0 and Roddick Plus can just kill the ball, but with those two racquets (and much more so the Extreme 2.0) my shots would get away from me. If you wanted me to include my old skunks, I'd put it just under the Juice Pro.

All of that with the caveat that by today's standards, I'm a flatter hitter. If hitting big ol' benders is your thing, I'd probably lean towards the 99S or EXO3 Tour and tell you to swing as hard as you can.

 

[MikeHitsHard93]

These are awesome reviews, Bob! Keep em comin really surprised to hear that you liked the tour so much...I demoed the older blue/orange version and it almost felt tinny to me.

 

[SmilinBob]

These are awesome reviews, Bob! Keep em comin really surprised to hear that you liked the tour so much...I demoed the older blue/orange version and it almost felt tinny to me.

Interesting you bring that up. The reason I ended up walking away from the BLX Tour initially is that the demo grip size was way too small and given that the racquet is discontinued ordering one up to spec is a little bit trickier. The demo racquet that I tried was a 4 1/4" grip and I normally play with a 4 1/2" grip. I took the demo, threw on a thicker grip, then wrapped it with two overgrips. I'm wondering if all that material between my hand and the racquet made it feel much softer than it actually is.

No reason I couldn't play with it that way though...

The price sure makes it more compelling than it was six months ago.

 

[MikeHitsHard93]

Interesting you bring that up. The reason I ended up walking away from the BLX Tour initially is that the demo grip size was way too small and given that the racquet is discontinued ordering one up to spec is a little bit trickier. The demo racquet that I tried was a 4 1/4" grip and I normally play with a 4 1/2" grip. I took the demo, threw on a thicker grip, then wrapped it with two overgrips. I'm wondering if all that material between my hand and the racquet made it feel much softer than it actually is.

No reason I couldn't play with it that way though...

The price sure makes it more compelling than it was six months ago.

Yeah I've thought about picking one up too because of the price and I like the cosmetic. It seems like it's actually suited to 3.0-3.5 lvl players rather than higher players due to its high power and large sweet spot.

 

[ollinger]

"Brevity is the Soul of Wit"
-----William Shakespeare

 

[Cfidave]

I would be interested in your thoughts on the Babolat Aero Storm Tour Gt. I picked one up on a wim, and was very pleasantly surprised at how well this racquet played, in almost all areas. If you get a chance ......

 

[counterpuncher]

I thought seriously about the Radical Pro, but the odd grip shape sort of turned me away. However I am playing this weekend and the local pro shop has demos of both the Radical Pro and Rebel .

There is always the possibility to switch the Radical pallet to the Speed series pallet which are rounder and closer to a Wilson shape.

I think you'll be able to find a winner between the Rad Pro, Rebel 98 and Pro One. I hit with a Skunk 6.2 a few years back for a while and think that these share some of those characteristics.

 

[syke]

How about trying the Pacific Xfeel Tour?

 

[SmilinBob]

How about trying the Pacific Xfeel Tour?

Before I demoed the X Force I went back-and-forth with it, the X Fast Pro 100, and the X Feel Tour. I must have spent 20 minutes debating which one to add to the demo order before I pulled the trigger.

I wasn't sure about the X Fast because of the increased stiffness but have been intrigued by some comments here and elsewhere that it is a solid serving racquet. I don't want to put any extra stress on my arm. I debated the swing weight with the X Feel Tour. Spec-wise it looks great and the constant-beam with a 56 flex sounds divine, but how is it for stability and plow-through? Does the X Feel at least have some weight in the hoop?

I've been following the comments in the recent Pacific thread. Seems like the feedback on all their frames is pretty positive, and I did enjoy the X Force that I demoed.

My X Force review -> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7452060&postcount=20

 

[canuckfan]

Thanks for the reviews, bob. Well written and very informative. If you get a chance, maybe the graphene speed mp and the pacific x fast pro might be interesting hitting experiences for you. Keep 'em coming

 

[Gambit61]

You should try the Yonex vcore tour 89. I've been hearing and reading some amazing things about it. I'd like to hear your take on it.

I will try it myself soon.

 

[GoudX]

Sounds like you should go for the Juice Pro or the Slazenger V98. Though if you are eager to keep demo'ing, I have two recommendations based on your reviews:

The Prestige Pro has a more open string pattern, is slightly stiffer and has a bit more weight in the head, which makes it a more powerful and forgiving version of the MP. It might give you that extra boost you needed on serve

The Rebel 95 is like a softer version of the Wilson 6.1 95, which I think you liked, but said it gave you arm issues. Technifibre also offer a few similar racquets with varying weights and string patterns.

The Federer racquet, the ProStaff 90, is the polar opposite of the Hammer you used, however it's main strengths are the serve and volley, and it has an open string pattern. In all likelihood it won't suit you, but it is a fun demo.

 

[The Isomotion31]

Man it hurts me to see you are down to your last skunk frame. I still have both of mine from high school. THey are hung on the wall. I think I may take one down to hit with just for fun this week.

 

[Torres]

Fantastic list of racquet reviews there Bob. Well done!

BLX Juice Pro. The second serve however was a bit of a different story, and one where I noticed two things. First, the heft that helps crush a flat serve feels much more sluggish when trying to really get the racquet head up and around the ball for a good topspin/kicker second. I had a bit less confidence in controlling the second reliably, which is a must for my serve-and-volley game. The second thing I really started to notice is the heft of the racquet when serving is simply tiring. I’m by no means a small or weak guy, but the racquet just left my shoulder fatigued. As my playing time with the Juice went on, my serves started to slowly degrade.

I actually find '2nd serves' easier to hit with the JP than flat serves. With flat serves, you're having to accelerate and throw alot of racquet mass. Sliced serves out wide and kickers, I find alot easier to hit. In fact, with a good grabby poly, sliders out wide are just insane. Same with kick serves.

My only slight grumbles with JP are that despite its c340g static weight, it's a fairly heavy swing, so you need to be on your game. I also don't see any need for that 0.25" (which IS noticeable). It's just a detriment to manouverability for what is already a fairly heavy swinging racquet. I'd also prefer a bit more flex in throat. Apart from those grumbles, I think its a great stick, if you're looking for something super stable in this weight class.

Extreme Pro 2.0 had a really bad habit of sending shots too long. Balls just loved the back of the court and a few (probably more to do with technique and a very powerful racquet) enjoyed a non-stop flight to the back fence. Slices were heavy but too many were floating long on me. I just couldn’t seem to adjust to the balls flying long.

Could that not all be tamed with a low powered poly or a higher tension?

 

[sunof tennis]

You may want to try the Pro Staff 95 and the Radical with some additional weight (through lead tape, or other means).
I play with the PS95. I put a leather grip with an overgrip which adds a little weight to the handle and a small amount of lead tape at 12 o'clock. Gives the racquet some more plow through. You are right that the Pro Staff is a control racquet. You can add more power by adding weight and more powerful strings. I play with a mid level gut in the mains and a soft poly in the crosses. Since I am not a string breaker, this works well.
The Radicals also traditionally customize very well. I once played with the microgel version at over 12 ounces.

 

[SmilinBob]

Man it hurts me to see you are down to your last skunk frame. I still have both of mine from high school. THey are hung on the wall. I think I may take one down to hit with just for fun this week.

You should buy a 40-oz of malt liquor and after you play pour a little out on the court for my fallen friends.

 

[SmilinBob]

I actually find '2nd serves' easier to hit with the JP than flat serves. With flat serves, you're having to accelerate and throw alot of racquet mass.

For my service motion, I found the Juice Pro just pronated around with my arm well and snapped through the ball on flat serves well. Going after a big kicker where I was going more up at the ball instead of rolling through it made the racquet feel much heavier.

My only slight grumbles with JP are that despite its c340g static weight, it's a fairly heavy swing, so you need to be on your game. I also don't see any need for that 0.25" (which IS noticeable). It's just a detriment to manouverability for what is already a fairly heavy swinging racquet.

I'd agree: It's rock solid but a mountain to move. I just don't think I could last a tourney with one playing twice a day.

Could that not all be tamed with a low powered poly or a higher tension?

I'd imagine it could. When I demoed the 2.0 it had a hybrid of poly in the mains and a syn gut in the crosses. I didn't write down what brand but most of the ones from the local shop have either been Babolat Hurricane Tour, Luxilon ALU Power, or a black textured poly with a gear-like profile to it. More recently they've been stringing up 4G in the mains. My only concern with full poly in the 2.0 is that on paper it's a stiff racquet and even though it didn't feel stiff to me, I wouldn't want to push it over the edge, if you know what I mean.

 

[SmilinBob]

You may want to try the Pro Staff 95 and the Radical with some additional weight (through lead tape, or other means).

At the end of my review of the Pro Staff 95 I mentioned the same thing - Adding lead to the hoop. I might give it a try after another round of reviews (not another 23 though...yikes) of some of the recommendations made in the thread already.

You can add more power by adding weight and more powerful strings. I play with a mid level gut in the mains and a soft poly in the crosses. Since I am not a string breaker, this works well.

I'm not much of a string breaker either and have always preferred the playability of 17 gauge strings over 16. I've been reading plenty of threads over in the string forum including the epic Mikeler's Multis thread and have a ton of stringing ideas. I haven't played natural gut in quite some time but imagine once I settle on a frame I'll give it a try again. The one multi that has me very intrigued is Dunlop Hexy Fiber as a few of the descriptions of it seem to mesh well with my memories of the old Wilson Hammertec.

 

[Ross K]

For pure, unadulterated power from the baseline and only the baseline, I'd probably rank the sticks I've demoed like this:

1) Extreme Pro 2.0
2) Roddick Plus
3) Juice Pro

Now, when you add the x-factor of control on there, I'd change it up:

1) Juice Pro
2) Either the Six.One 95 16x18, regular Pure Drive, or the Blade 98 16x19
3) Roddick Plus

Both the Extreme 2.0 and Roddick Plus can just kill the ball, but with those two racquets (and much more so the Extreme 2.0) my shots would get away from me. If you wanted me to include my old skunks, I'd put it just under the Juice Pro.

All of that with the caveat that by today's standards, I'm a flatter hitter. If hitting big ol' benders is your thing, I'd probably lean towards the 99S or EXO3 Tour and tell you to swing as hard as you can.

Thanks Bob. Interesting stuff.

FWIW I loved the new open pattern Blade for solidness, control/power combination, lush feel, etc, but find it a tad demanding, especially as I'm not playing so frequently ATM. 99s I find easier to pick up and play with, and though quirky has a range of qualities I like. Re the Exo Tour, I so agree with your observations. Not quite for me TBH as I prefer more put away/serve oomph.

 

[syke]

Before I demoed the X Force I went back-and-forth with it, the X Fast Pro 100, and the X Feel Tour. I must have spent 20 minutes debating which one to add to the demo order before I pulled the trigger.

I wasn't sure about the X Fast because of the increased stiffness but have been intrigued by some comments here and elsewhere that it is a solid serving racquet. I don't want to put any extra stress on my arm. I debated the swing weight with the X Feel Tour. Spec-wise it looks great and the constant-beam with a 56 flex sounds divine, but how is it for stability and plow-through? Does the X Feel at least have some weight in the hoop?

I've been following the comments in the recent Pacific thread. Seems like the feedback on all their frames is pretty positive, and I did enjoy the X Force that I demoed.

My X Force review -> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7452060&postcount=20

I think you should give it a try. I have the xforce, and I reckon the xfeel tour is just a more forgiving version of the xforce. It could be something you felt lacking in the xforce.

 

[prjacobs]

Good for you, Bob. That's the way to demo. Good luck!