Tennis Warehouse Playtest: Dunlop CX 200 2021 Family

martyr444

Rookie
First hit for 1.5 hours. For me, its not lacking in power. I strung it up at 54LBS with Volkl Cyclone Tour 16 Mains and Explosive Tour Crosses. Next stringing will be higher tension and my current regular string combo.
 

mad dog1

G.O.A.T.
First hit for 1.5 hours. For me, its not lacking in power. I strung it up at 54LBS with Volkl Cyclone Tour 16 Mains and Explosive Tour Crosses. Next stringing will be higher tension and my current regular string combo.
Maybe mention which stick you got? Might be helpful... :unsure:
 

ryushen21

Hall of Fame
I'm about 3 hours in with the CX200 18x20 and not finding much in the way of positive highlights at the moment. Solid and soft feel but not much in the way of feedback or response. Power is good if you like taking big, full cuts at the ball. I do absolutely love the grip shape and it does hit a mean 1HBH.

More reporting to come.
 

martyr444

Rookie
Another 1.5 Hours of hitting the Tour 16x19. This time with Tourna Big Hitter Silver 7 Tour 16 String Mains at 60lbs and Wilson Revolve Spin 16 Crosses at 57lbs. This gave me more control and still very good power. It feels very solid at impact. I do like taking big full cuts at the Ball on both wings and I hit a one handed backhand. Slices stay very low and drive through the Court.
 

bigserving

Hall of Fame
First hit for 1.5 hours. For me, its not lacking in power. I strung it up at 54LBS with Volkl Cyclone Tour 16 Mains and Explosive Tour Crosses. Next stringing will be higher tension and my current regular string combo.
After you get dialed into the proper tension, do try the Explosive Tour strings that came with the racquet. They are really good strings.
 

taylor15

Professional
Racquet came today. Initial look is that it is great paint (as stated before) and the weight of the CX 200 I received is 307gm, which is what I expected from previous Dunlop frames. Mine have always been 1-2gm over spec - but right on point if you take the rubber collar off the handle.

I've decided that I'm going to keep strings sort of consistent with my NXT/Element combo I use on my UTs. I'm going to take the Explosive Tour and Iconic All and hybrid them in this frame. Iconic All Mains and Explosive Tour crosses at 52/49. I'll take the other half of each set and string one of my UTs at my regular tension so that I can hit that combo as well for comparison to my normal setup for the strings. Hopefully the wind/cold ease up a bit in GA and I can hit the courts with this racquet on Thursday.

Edit: just measure balance, 322mm against the 315mm spec listed on the racquet.
 
Last edited:

mogo

Semi-Pro
Got to hit with the Dunlop 18x20 Tour. It has control, but doesn’t have as much plow as I would like. Could be the 319 SW?? Took 3 days to break strings. I broke the crosses and not the mains. I strung the Dunlop 18x20 Tour @ 37pds with Hyper-G 17g. I usually use a 98 head size and string at 40pds, but because this is a 95sq in. head size I went lower. I am restringing at 40pds and will see if the same break happens again. Overall good control and spin. Just not the finishing power I would like. I only hit with the racquet in stock form and will see where some lead tape could benefit this frame in terms of plow through.
 

ryushen21

Hall of Fame
Here's my inital but not yet final review.

Dunlop CX200 Tour 18x20 Review


String and tension used for test: Solinco Hyper G 17g 47m/45c

Tennis experience/background: 15 years tennis experience using a variety of frames, current High School tennis coach

Describe your playing style (i.e. serve & volley): Aggressive baseliner with all-court play mixed in

Current racquet/string setups: Yonex EZone 100 (stock) w/ Hyper G 17g @ 47/45

How many hours did you play with the racquet? At the time of this writing, I have a little over 10 hours playing with the frame and have made no modifications.


Comments on racquet performance for each stroke (each section should be 3-5 sentences minimum):

Groundstrokes: Based on the specs of this frame, I was expecting the groundstrokes to be more similar to the Wilson Ultra Tour 2.0. On the forehand, it was easy enough to generate a relatively deep ball but I found the spin potential to be lower than expected. Landing the ball deeper into the court required big, full cuts every time although I could get more depth by sacrificing some topspin and hitting more eastern. I would say that I was comfortable hitting my forehand but had a hard time hitting the forehand I wanted to. The backhand was more enjoyable and something about this grip shape and the weight/balance absolutely lends itself to a one-handed backhand. To be clear, I hit with a two-handed backhand primarily but the one-hander just feels natural. On the two-hander, I found it easy to mix up my backhand shots and could drive or loop my shots more with confidence. Depth was a bit lacking compared to my usual frame but the backhand was generally a more enjoyable shot than the forehand for me on this frame. The swing weight was definitely lacking here to provide that added plow to make groundies more potent.

Serves: The balance and weight of this frame made it almost perfect for serves. First serves came off with better than expected pop and I was able to hit my spots easily. I did not see as much action on my second serves though. While I still got a decent amount of kick, it was not as high as my current frame and my opponents found it easier to return. Slice serves had good movement but suffered a similar effect to the kick serves.

Volleys: Volleys are an absolute joy with this frame. At the net, I found it to be very stable and provide a good response on volleys. Directional control was superb. However, the best part was the racquet’s ability to absorb and redirect pace. It allowed me to redirect shots and change the tempo of the game. This may have been my favorite aspect of the racquet.

Serve returns: Another aspect of this racquet that is outstanding. I found a great amount of confidence in my returns with this frame knowing that I could attack with a full swing and keep the ball in the court. But defensive returns were surprisingly good as well. Against bigger serves, I could block serves back while keeping the ball low to keep me competitive in the point.


Comments on racquet performance in each area (should be 2-3 sentences minimum)

Power/Control: Even though I was playing with full poly, I would still consider this to be a relatively low-powered frame. It requires full, aggressive swings to create action and get depth on the shots. The pattern on this frame is nice and tight but I did not get a sense of control coming off the strings. I knew where my shots were going because of my setup and swing execution not because the racquet was providing me with the feedback and confidence of control.

Top Spin/Slice: This frame felt like it was built for a flatter hitting style for sure. Brushing motions had to be exaggerated to a good degree to get comparable topspin to other 18x20 frames I’ve played with lately. It wasn’t that topspin wasn’t there, it just was not as much as I see in other similar frames. The slice on this frame was quite nice in the sense that I had no issues keeping my slice nice and low. So while some of the action may have been missing, that low angle made the shot tricky for my opponents to return.

Comfort: Another standout feature of the frame is how comfortable it is. Even in off-center hits, there was no shock or jarring reactions. You can feel that the intended design with increased flex is doing the job that it’s designed for. I would suspect that going up significantly in string tension would still result in an enjoyable level of comfort.

Feel: So this is where the rub was for me. I’m at a bit of loss trying to explain the feel of this racquet. There was so little for me that it was hard to qualify what the actual feel of the frame is. It just came across to me as dead. It didn’t have the plush and responsive feel of the classic frames it appears to emulate. It felt soft on contact but it was also pingy. And there was so little response/feedback from the stringbed that it made identifying the sweetspot practically impossible. Perhaps this frame is more string sensitive than others I’ve hit with but the feel was just not there for me.

Maneuverability: I found this frame easy to maneuver. At 7pts HL, it’s as close to an ideal balance for this style of frame as one could hope for. I could adjust and react quickly and with confidence that the frame would be where I needed/wanted it to be.

Stability: The stability on this frame was great right out of the box. I’m used to adding lead to frames like this because I encounter stability issues but I could not find issues with the frame across the entirety of the hoop. Even when I was redirecting shots that were coming in hot, the frame did not show any signs of weakness.

General reaction/comments on overall performance: After hitting with this frame, it feels like Dunlop was trying to make a classic-style player’s frame with some modern flourishes but then got the whole process jumbled and ended up making neither. Rather than having that plush but responsive feel of old Prestiges or even the Ultra Tour, the frame comes across as so muted that it is nearly impossible to discern what kind of shot you hit upon making contact with the ball. There was also no noticeable thwack or thump sound when you hit the ball. If anything, it’s more of a dull thud. It also didn’t have the kind of power that is being seen in newer lines of player frames. I very much wanted to like the frame but I could not find a discernible groove with it in its present configuration.

I am going to continue testing this frame and will be adding lead at 10/2 to beef up the swing weight a bit to see if that helps. I will also restring with a crisper poly to see if that establishes a different or better feel from the frame.
 
Last edited:
Here's my inital but not yet final review.

Dunlop CX200 Tour 18x20 Review


String and tension used for test: Solinco Hyper G 17g 47m/45c

Tennis experience/background: 15 years tennis experience using a variety of frames, current High School tennis coach

Describe your playing style (i.e. serve & volley): Aggressive baseliner with all-court play mixed in

Current racquet/string setups: Yonex EZone 100 (stock) w/ Hyper G 17g @ 47/45

How many hours did you play with the racquet? At the time of this writing, I have a little over 10 hours playing with the frame and have made no modifications.


Comments on racquet performance for each stroke (each section should be 3-5 sentences minimum):

Groundstrokes: Based on the specs of this frame, I was expecting the groundstrokes to be more similar to the Wilson Ultra Tour 2.0. On the forehand, it was easy enough to generate a relatively deep ball but I found the spin potential to be lower than expected. Landing the ball deeper into the court required big, full cuts every time although I could get more depth by sacrificing some topspin and hitting more eastern. I would say that I was comfortable hitting my forehand but had a hard time hitting the forehand I wanted to. The backhand was more enjoyable and something about this grip shape and the weight/balance absolutely lends itself to a one-handed backhand. To be clear, I hit with a two-handed backhand primarily but the one-hander just feels natural. On the two-hander, I found it easy to mix up my backhand shots and could drive or loop my shots more with confidence. Depth was a bit lacking compared to my usual frame but the backhand was generally a more enjoyable shot than the forehand for me on this frame. The swing weight was definitely lacking here to provide that added plow to make groundies more potent.

Serves: The balance and weight of this frame made it almost perfect for serves. First serves came off with better than expected pop and I was able to hit my spots easily. I did not see as much action on my second serves though. While I still got a decent amount of kick, it was not as high as my current frame and my opponents found it easier to return. Slice serves has good movement but suffered a similar effect to the kick serves.

Volleys: Volleys are an absolute joy with this frame. At the net, I found it to be very stable and provide a good response on volleys. Directional control was superb. However, the best part was the racquet’s ability to absorb and redirect pace. It allowed me to redirect shots and change the tempo of the game. This may have been my favorite aspect of the racquet.

Serve returns: Another aspect of this racquet that is outstanding. I found a great amount of confidence in my returns with this frame knowing that I could attack with a full swing and keep the ball in the court. But defensive returns were surprisingly good as well. Against bigger serves, I could block serves back while keeping the ball low to keep me competitive in the point.


Comments on racquet performance in each area (should be 2-3 sentences minimum)

Power/Control: Even though I was playing with full poly, I would still consider this to be a relatively low-powered frame. It requires full, aggressive swings to create action and get depth on the shots. The pattern on this frame is nice and tight but I did not get a sense of control coming off the strings. I knew where my shots were going because of my setup and swing execution not because the racquet was providing me with the feedback and confidence of control.

Top Spin/Slice: This frame felt like it was built for a flatter hitting style for sure. Brushing motions had to be exaggerated to a good degree to get comparable topspin to other 18x20 frames I’ve played with lately. It wasn’t that topspin wasn’t there, it just was not as much as I see in other similar frames. The slice on this frame was quite nice in the sense that I had no issues keeping my slice nice and low. So while some of the action may have been missing, that low angle made the shot tricky for my opponents to return.

Comfort: Another standout feature of the frame is how comfortable it is. Even in off-center hits, there was no shock or jarring reactions. You can feel that the intended design with increased flex is doing the job that it’s designed for. I would suspect that going up significantly in string tension would still result in an enjoyable level of comfort.

Feel: So this is where the rub was for me. I’m at a bit of loss trying to explain the feel of this racquet. There was so little for me that it was hard to qualify what the actual feel of the frame is. It just came across to me as dead. It didn’t have the plush and responsive feel of the classic frames it appears to emulate. It felt soft on contact but it was also pingy. And there was so little response/feedback from the stringbed that it made identifying the sweetspot practically impossible. Perhaps this frame is more string sensitive than others I’ve hit with but the feel was just not there for me.

Maneuverability: I found this frame easy to maneuver. At 7pts HL, it’s as close to an ideal balance for this style of frame as one could hope for. I could adjust and react quickly and with confidence that the frame would be where I needed/wanted it to be.

Stability: The stability on this frame was great right out of the box. I’m used to adding lead to frames like this because I encounter stability issues but I could not find issues with the frame across the entirety of the hoop. Even when I was redirecting shots that were coming in hot, the frame did not show any signs of weakness.

General reaction/comments on overall performance: After hitting with this frame, it feels like Dunlop was trying to make a classic-style player’s frame with some modern flourishes but then got the whole process jumbled and ended up making neither. Rather than having that plush but responsive feel of old Prestiges or even the Ultra Tour, the frame comes across as so muted that it is nearly impossible to discern what kind of shot you hit upon making contact with the ball. There was also no noticeable thwack or thump sound when you hit the ball. If anything, it’s more of a dull thud. It also didn’t have the kind of power that is being seen in newer lines of player frames. I very much wanted to like the frame but I could not find a discernible groove with it in its present configuration.

I am going to continue testing this frame and will be adding lead at 10/2 to beef up the swing weight a bit to see if that helps. I will also restring with a crisper poly to see if that establishes a different or better feel from the frame.
Great review, nice to read and one of the first reviews I've seen :). What makes you decide to add the lead at 10/2 instead of 12 when the stability in stock form was very good for you already? Just curious.
 

ryushen21

Hall of Fame
Great review, nice to read and one of the first reviews I've seen :). What makes you decide to add the lead at 10/2 instead of 12 when the stability in stock form was very good for you already? Just curious.
I usually don't like to go completely polar on my lead setups. For example, I went with lead at 3/9/12 on my Ultra Tours. 10/2 is usually a good starting point to add some mass but not go crazy with the swing weight. I'll have to examine more closely how much lead I use to counterbalance in this frame because I want to up that swing weight for sure and may drop the balance to 4-5pts HL.
 

Vicious49

Professional
Great review, nice to read and one of the first reviews I've seen :). What makes you decide to add the lead at 10/2 instead of 12 when the stability in stock form was very good for you already? Just curious.
I have the CX200 Tour 16/19 which I purchased on my own (so not part of the playtest). The racquet is severely underpowered - even more than a platform frame like the Ultra Tour. I added grams each at 3 and 9 which did seem to help a bit on ground strokes but my serves still lacked pop. So I added 2 grams at 12. That just seemed to make the racquet feel sluggish. I then removed all the lead and put 2 grams each at 10 and 12. This seemed to help with both groundstrokes and my serve. It still requires you to take full cuts to get any power but at least it's no longer anemic like it was in stock form. Forgot to mention I have mine strung with 17g HyperG Soft at 48#.

I haven't played with it enough to make a conclusion but so far it feels like something that would do better in doubles than singles for me - due to it's maneuverability and lack of power.
 

cortado

Semi-Pro
Not to de-rail the thread but I see that a lot of you describing lack of power are using fully poly string.
Would it be worth doing gut/poly, multi, full syn gut etc to see how the racquet plays then?
 

ryushen21

Hall of Fame
Not to de-rail the thread but I see that a lot of you describing lack of power are using fully poly string.
Would it be worth doing gut/poly, multi, full syn gut etc to see how the racquet plays then?
You could go hybrid or full multi and get an increase in power. But, at least for the 18x20 version, you will run into the lack of spin potential becoming a greater problem.
 

taylor15

Professional
Not to de-rail the thread but I see that a lot of you describing lack of power are using fully poly string.
Would it be worth doing gut/poly, multi, full syn gut etc to see how the racquet plays then?
I’m only 2 hours in my play test due to the weather in GA this weekend, but power in the CX 200 is good for me so far using a multi/poly hybrid. This is comparing to a players frame, not a pure drive, when thinking power. I’m having a harder time with this setup with control in the first couple of hours
 

Vicious49

Professional
Not to de-rail the thread but I see that a lot of you describing lack of power are using fully poly string.
Would it be worth doing gut/poly, multi, full syn gut etc to see how the racquet plays then?
I don't want to cut out perfectly good strings but when it comes time to restring I will do a full bed or at least hybrid of multi.

I’m only 2 hours in my play test due to the weather in GA this weekend, but power in the CX 200 is good for me so far using a multi/poly hybrid. This is comparing to a players frame, not a pure drive, when thinking power. I’m having a harder time with this setup with control in the first couple of hours
What strings and tension are you using?
 

taylor15

Professional
What strings and tension are you using?
Dunlop Iconic All 16 mains and Dunlop Explosive tour 16 crosses at 52/49. I usually play NXT 16/Lux element 1.25 at 52/49 in my UTs

These Dunlop strings are soft and pretty lively. I put the other half of each set in a UT for comparison and get more power in that frame too.
 

CosmosMpower

Hall of Fame
I'm in for some CX200 Tour 18x20 reviews!

Based on specs it seems pretty darn similar to something like a TC95/97 18x20.
 
Last edited:
Dunlop Iconic All 16 mains and Dunlop Explosive tour 16 crosses at 52/49. I usually play NXT 16/Lux element 1.25 at 52/49 in my UTs

These Dunlop strings are soft and pretty lively. I put the other half of each set in a UT for comparison and get more power in that frame too.
The Iconic All should be pretty similar to the NXT, to the extent that you might not even be able to tell them apart.

 

max

Legend
I'd be glad to take part, especially with a 16 x 19 model. Just message if you'd like: I know racquets very well and can do this for you.
 

taylor15

Professional
The Iconic All should be pretty similar to the NXT, to the extent that you might not even be able to tell them apart.

In a hybrid it is very hard to tell them apart. With the explosive cross string it is a bit softer than the NXT/Element - very small to the point it could be in my head. I definitely get a bit more spin with the element cross, but I could switch to Iconic All as a main. After 7 hours in this frame so far it's holding up better than NXT. Even in the UT with the tight pattern the NXT/Element usually gets about 10 hours before breakage, and this could surpass that in the open pattern. Overall really impressed with the first dunlop strings I've used.
 

drc1911

New User
I'm really looking forward to reading more reviews about these racquets. I demoed the last version and liked them, but I felt they lacked put away power and didn't feel as nice as other racquets I've hit with. If someone could specifically compare the feel of the current version to the last, that would be great.
 

ryushen21

Hall of Fame
After being frozen for a week here in Texas, I should be able to get back on the courts with my demo frame this next week.

I've restrung it with the Dunlop Explosive 16 at 46/44 and added 2g at 10/2. The swing feel is improved and I'm hoping this setup results in better plow and a more lively stringbed.
 

taylor15

Professional
After almost two weeks out from crummy weather I played twice today. Early am ball machine session for an hour, and a match against an evenly matched partner with the CX 200. I’m liking this one more than I expected, a lot more.
 

mtommer

Hall of Fame
Played today with the restrung and leaded racquet. There was a definite improvement. Further feedback to come.
I'm curious what your specs are at right now. My CX200 Tour 18x20 spec plays well with 12 g in the handle and 8 grams at 3,9 (just slightly off center by one grommet space towards 6).
 
Racquet Model: CX 200
String and tension used for test: Solinco Revolution at 52 pounds
Tennis experience/background: I have been playing on and off for the past 10 years. Varsity in high school, played at my junior college, university, and am currently coaching. While at my prime I was probably a 4.0 NTRP singles, doubles has always been my strongsuit and reached about 4.5 NTRP
Describe your playing style (i.e. serve & volley): I have always been a doubles player, and always have had a serve and volley style. When playing singles, I would consider myself a counterpuncher with a bit of chip and charge syle mixed in. I am by no means an endurance player, or can crank winners on command, nor do I pretend to be :).
Current racquet/string setups: Babolat pure aero with either Solinco hyper G/revolution at about 51-54 pounds.
How many hours did you play with the racquet? 25 hours

Comments on racquet performance for each stroke (each section should be 3-5 sentences minimum):
-Groundstrokes: Right off the bat, I will say the racquet was not very stable. While it felt nice to hit groundstrokes with, it was not very stable and twists a lot and felt like I was being pushed a lot when hitting against bigger shots. What I did enjoy however, was how precise it felt. It really was a point and shoot racquet, with my spinny forehand shots dipping in and being precise enough to flatten out shots when I needed to. I would say that if you player a more traditional, flatter style of playing you will probably enjoy it more than if you were a more modern/spinny style of hitter. Plowthrough is also a big factor, and has not enough of it for heavy shots in my opinion.
-Serves: Serves was probably the strongest part of this racquet. It felt stable enough to where I can crank up the racquet head speed and really kick up my serves. It was also very precise feeling, and point and shoot style. I do not really serve flat bombs, but feel like if you serve a bit flatter you would need a bit more weight to help you out.
-Volleys: Volleys were above average to me. I could really point and shoot and direct the volley to wherever I want to, but suffers from lack of swingweight or stability. It was fine to volley when playing against your "average" players, but when I started to have to volley against bigger hitters, the racquet was a bit too light and was having to just have to hold the racquet so it does not flutter a lot.
-Serve returns: Returns were fairly similar to groundstrokes. If you are an advanced level player, Then the racquet lets you redirect really well and crank winners. If not, you could feel the racquet getting pushed around. Stability is something that this racquet needs, so if you are not a really good returner in general, the racquet won't give you any favors.

Comments on racquet performance in each area (should be 2-3 sentences minimum)
Power/Control- It is no secret that this does not have the power of a radical or a pure drive, nor is it trying to. It is definitely a control racquet, and I feel it does it very well. My best way of describing it was a head prestige minus the stability, but yet sharper.
Top Spin/Slice-. Topspin was average, but also not as spinny as a pure aero. I feel like this racquet gives you what you put in in terms of spin. If you are a spinny player like myself, then this racquet is OK. If you hit flatter, do not expect the racquet to increase your spin rate. Slices were however VERY nice to hit, as it glided through the air and was low powered so it could absorb pace fairly well.
Comfort- comfort is also the best part of this racquet. It is not stiff at all, and was very soft feeling, No vibrations whatsoever, nor did I feel it affecting my elbow.
Feel- Feel was a sort of a mix for me. My best way of describing it is like a prestige, but a bit sharper and not as flexy. Vibrations were not an issue, and was very sharp feeling and dialed in.
Maneuverability- I feel like this racquet is fairly easy for anyone to pick up and use. When switching from forehand to backhand or vice versa, it felt very natural and easy to do so due to its lower swing weight and ability to be a faster, lighter feeling "prestige"
Stability- Ah yes, finally the stability part of the review. Not much to write here, much like the stability in the racquet itself (close to non-existent). It just needs to be way more stable in my opinion. All positive aspects of this racquet can be amplified and negative parts of the review could be eliminated if it were just slightly more stable. Considering this is not the tour version, stability and weight may not be the sole focus of this racquet.

General reaction/comments on overall performance: Overall, I do feel like it is an improvement from the previous iteration, as I was on that playtest as well. It felt sharper than the last version , but unfortunately they sacrificed stability. I feel like with some lead tape and customization, the cx 200 is a good platform racquet.

As always, thank you very much TW and Dunlop for a chance to playtest equipment, and looking forward to many more reviews and improvements in the future!
 
Last edited:

Tennisist

Semi-Pro
Preface

This is my review #1 – after 1 week of hitting, and using everything stock.
There will be a review #2 posted later. The reason is that I got two very different impressions of this racquet during the first week and during the weeks that followed.

Thanks to the Tennis Warehouse and Dunlop for organizing this extended playtest. If this playtest had not been extended, I would had been left with just the initial first impression which was quite different from the one I got later, when I could really tinker with the racquet and adjust it to my needs and style.

So, here we go. Review #1 – after 1 week of hitting. Fresh string. Everything stock.

Racquet Model: Dunlop CX 200 ( 2021 model, red, 98”, 16x19, regular length ) Came perfectly on-spec.
String and tension used for test: Dunlop Explosive Tour 1.30 @ 48/46 lbs
Tennis experience/background: US NTRP 4.0, baseliner, loopy strokes, heavy spin.
Current racquet/string setups:
[singles] Srixon 2.0+ XL (generation zero of this series, pre-Dunlop)
[doubles] Wilson ProStaff 97

How many hours did you play with the racquet? 18 hours

Groundstrokes:

The racquet felt light and very mobile. It swung very easily. When I strung it, I immediately noticed that string density in the center of the stringbed is very high. To the point that it got me worried. I do not play well with dense racquets, and the squares in the center where really small. Turns out it was a false alarm. Dunlop went unusual way here. They have 16 mains and they stay sparse throughout the face. There is a “bunching up” of the crosses in the very center. This creates an unusual pattern. It did not behave like an 18x20 racquet for me. It still behaved like an 16x19 frame. The strings grabbed the ball well, and my loopy strokes that rely on spin worked really well with it.

[ I did try flat strokes, but did not have much luck with them. I must say that I cannot be a judge here. I do not know how to hit flat. I have not mastered this stroke, and so I cannot execute it with other racquets as well. There is no reliability with it for me. Only ¼ of the strokes reach the target. ]

What I did notice is that all things being quite close, I did have more reliability / precision with the Dunlop than with my PS97. Densifying the stringbed in the center probably had its desired effect.

What I also noticed is that “zing” is missing compared to the XL (generation 0) version. When I need it, the XL delivers a really stinging ball. This one, in this stock configuration, just does not.

-Serves: average. Power was missing. But precision was high. And because it is light and easy to swing – very few errors. High mobility and grabbiness produced really good second serves.

-Volleys: It is easy to stick this racquet out, and put it on the ball, but the sensation is suboptimal: too much feedback, not enough weight or directional control.

-Serve returns: not stable. This is the biggest drawback of this racquet: in stock form, it is not equipped to deal with a heavy ball.

Power/Control: Power was low; control was decent ( as expected from a “control” racquet.)

Top Spin/Slice: Topspin was average, slice, however, was excellent. Slices were noticeably better than PS97. I suspect the dense crosses in the center contributed to this.

Comfort: Not the highest ( not in this stock form), but fairly good: certainly in the top 20%.

Feel: This is one this racquet’s very unusual features. The feel is very “rich”. It is kind of surprising. Over the years, I’ve been moving to successively ever more muted racquets, with ever more "absent" feel. This racquet took a radical 180° turn to that approach. The racquet is extremely “chatty”. I nicknamed it a “walkie-talkie”. You can feel everything. Every hit produces not only a different signature, but a whole new chord with 3-6 notes in it. It’s like an orchestra. For somebody who is used to very fast-decaying thud, this richness and variety is quite surprising. For people who love to “feel” the ball on the strings, I do not think you will find any better. This feedback will definitely tell you when you hit something wrong on the face, and it will highlight it with its particular and specific sound.

Maneuverability: excellent. It swings very easy through the air. It also feels “thin” ( no sign of clunkiness anywhere.)

Stability: In stock form, stability was lacking. During hard-serve returns, during volleying and attempting to counter heavy incoming balls – the racquet was recoiling and I was spraying the balls all over. This was not the case with the CX2.0+(XL) that I often use for singles. The contrast of the two frames was significant.

General reaction/comments on overall performance:

Overall, in stock form, I did not detect any particular weaknesses, nor did I detect any particular strengths.

The unusual feature is the amount of feedback that this frame + strings provide, and the “richness” of it. Every spot on the face seems to have its own chord, and there appears to be at least 20 of them. [ With other frames I only get two: yes-a-sweetspot and not-a-sweetspot. ]

This racquet worked well with my loopy strokes. Control through spin was excellent. Everything landed where I expected it to. No surprises there.

I was hoping this frame to be a “softer” and better looking replacement for my CX2.0+ XL. (which is excellent, but is a bit stiff ). “Softer” is was, but I am afraid, it also lost the “zip”.

The good news is that “zip” can be restored. For this, wait until my review #2.
 
Last edited:

Tennisist

Semi-Pro
Review #2

I kind-of know what I am looking for in a frame. This Dunlop (CX200 98” 2021) actually got me closer to what I need.

I play singles with Srixon 2.0+ XL. It is a very effective racquets for singles, but it is not without its problems: (1) it is stiff, (2) it looks like a Pokemon-on-LSD (it is painful to look at); (3) it can be slow (if your opponent is fast). This Dunlop 2021 is softer, faster, and is actually a beauty.

The problem is that this red CX200 has a TW=11, and my pokemon has a TW=15.

So, what happens when you beef up the TwistWeight? A miracle!

I added sorbothane strips at 3 and 9 ( 2g + 2g ). Now TW=16, SW=330.

This was enough to completely change the behavior and the feel.

Feel: All the “chatter” has been silenced. No more "chords" on every stroke. What remained was a nice clean feedback – a single frequency “shpock”. It is still there and is very well-defined, much stronger than on 2.0XL or on PS97.

You literally feel the ball sinking in the stringbed, and then recoiling. It is very satisfying. After hitting like this for a week, going back to PS97 or 2.0XL is problematic: those suddenty feel crude and unfriendly. The extra softness of the CX200 that is built into the frame, helps here as well. I think they got the stiffness just right. Any softer, and it might be suffering stability issues.

Groundstrokes: Apart from the feel, this mod suddenly added “heaviness” to each shot, made it full-bodied. Hitting hard produces a hard, unwavering ball. The “zip” that was missing has returned.

What improved are the volleys ( much more solid now, and directionally correct ), and the return of serve ( no problem blocking the heavy incoming ball now ).

Flat serves did not really gain much, and the flat strokes are still erratic – but those are not crucial to my game. Spin forehand and backhand remained effortless, and were not hampered by the extra weight.

Sweetspot: Another outstanding feature of this frame is how evenly the sweetspot is distributed across the face. I do not perceive any sharply defined boundaries between the sweet spot and the rest, like you do on so many racquets. The sweetspot feels large, and it peters out very gradually towards the edges. My shots are very consistent with this racquet. No surprise shots.

So, now I feel I got what I wished for – I softer PS97 ( with a bit more consistency and reliability ), a little bit more addictive (due to the rich feeback).

It is also probably going to squeeze the CX2.0XL out of the bag, as it is much better looking and more satisfying racquet to play with. [ CX2.0XL does inflict heavy damage! I wish they had released this red iteration in XL length! I am not sure why they do not. As far as I could see, that XL (apart from its looks) was the best Dunlop of the last 10 years. ]
 
Last edited:

martyr444

Rookie
Racquet Model: Dunlop CX 200 Tour (16x19)

String and tension used for test: First hit for 1.5 hours. For me, it’s not lacking in power. I strung it up at 54LBS with Volkl Cyclone Tour 16 Mains and Explosive Tour Crosses. This combination gave me more power then I needed or wanted.

Remaining hours with the Racket was done using Tourna Big Hitter Silver 7 Tour 16 mains at 60lbs and Wilson Revolve Spin 16 crosses at 57lbs. This gave me the added control in which I liked.

Tennis experience/background: I started late playing Tennis. Before Tennis it was always Football, Baseball and Basketball. When I hit my 40’s I added Tennis knowing the other sports would eventually be tougher to keep up and avoid injury. I eventually started playing League Tennis which then led to Tournament play. I got to play in a Money Tournament and made it to the finals to win some cash.

Describe your playing style (i.e. serve & volley): I rely on heavy ground strokes to get my opponent in trouble. When a good shot looks to have them on the defensive, I move forward. I like being offensive verses defensive. When I play doubles then I like being at the net.

Current racquet/string setups: I have 3 or 4, but this Racket best compares to my Wilson Clash 98. I use the same string set up for it that I used to test the Dunlop on the 2nd round of testing. This gives me a consistent comparison between Rackets. (Tourna Big Hitter Silver 7 Tour 16 mains at 60lbs and Wilson Revolve Spin 16 crosses at 57lbs)

How many hours did you play with the racquet? 40 hours

Comments on racquet performance for each stroke:

-Groundstrokes: Comparing this Racket verses the Wilson Clash 98. The Dunlop hits a flatter trajectory top spin shot. It’s not as loopy and travels faster through the court. I felt I got a little less control with the Dunlop unless I intentionally brushed up on the ball more compared to the Wilson. It hit a heavier ball for me compared to the Wilson. It’s not a Racket to get “lazy” with if you want the full rewards it can offer. I could definitely feel more flex with the Wilson compared to the Dunlop. They are both close enough in specs that I can switch from one to the other without any problems. I prefer the Wilson for singles and the Dunlop for doubles.

-Serves: For serves I found both the Dunlop and the Wilson to be fairly close to one another. I got a little more pace with the Dunlop especially on flat serves. The Wilson provided more jump on the server especially with my 2nd serve. The Dunlop would jam my opponents better compared to the Wilson due to the movement once the ball hit the ground. Both Rackets give equally good shot placement.

-Volleys: Not much difference between the Dunlop and Wilson on Volleys. I may have felt better feel with the Wilson. I could put Volleys away with both Rackets just the same. I like both Rackets for cutting under the ball sharply for drop shots with nasty spin. Very comfortable feeling with the Volleys.

-Serve returns: I could swing away for the most part with the Dunlop and still have great control. Comparing it to the Wilson, it gets back to the Server a little bit faster giving them less time to react. It you get lazy the ball can fly on you on full strokes due to less spin. When I wanted to get the return with a higher trajectory, I did have to brush up more and make sure and keep my Racket Head speed up.

Comments on racquet performance in each:

Power/Control-
For me the Dunlop had plenty of power. Comparing it to the Wilson if provided more power. The control was very good, but you have to keep up your Racket head speed to get the needed spin on full strokes. Lazy full strokes can cause the ball to go long. With some spin on your flat shots they travel through the court quickly. I would still class it as a control oriented Racket.

Top Spin/Slice- Topspin isn’t this Rackets strongest point. You need to use high racket head speed to get any kind of heavy top spin. It also helps to use a western grip and brush up. My Wilson Clash 98 provides more easy access to topspin. Slicing the ball it keeps the ball down low and penetrates the court. It definitely gave me better performance for slicing verses topspin. I found placement with the slice to be very accurate.

Comfort- Very comfortable Racket to use. There was no harsh vibrations or jarring. Both the Dunlop and the Wilson are similar in this aspect. It even got better after I added some head tape which also gave it more plow through. I can only imagine the comfort if you are a gut user. This would be one of the strengths of this Racket.

Feel- Feel was just average for me. The same can be said for my Wilson Clash 98. It may be hard to obtain extreme feel if you also want a high comfort Racket. It in no way caused any issues with my game. I don't rely so much on feel as I do with power, so this didn't effect my game in a negative way.


Maneuverability- A very maneuverable Racket. With the headlight balance and thin beam you get the maneuverability that you expect. This helps to get the needed Racket head speed needed to add some extra topspin. It’s very quick at the net for reflex shots. It also helped with shots that came in quick to help them from jamming you up. Before I added some head tape, it was almost too whippy for my initial timing of the ball.

Stability- For the most part it’s a stable Racket. You can get a little flutter if you hit towards the outer most parts of the side and top of the string bed. Once I added head tape it obtained more stability without hurting the maneuverability. Since I like polys at higher tensions, it's important for the Racket to be stable.

General reaction/comments on overall performance: This is a good Racket providing a combination of control and enough power. This Dunlop offering should do well for Dunlop. My guess the other 2 Models should do the same as the Tour 16x19 that I tested. I can switch between this and my Wilson Clash without skipping a beat. I also like thin beamed Rackets so this is good.


A big thank you Tennis Warehouse and Dunlop!
 

snoflewis

Hall of Fame
Racquet Model: CX200 Tour 16x19
String and tension used for test: Tecnifibre Ice Code 17g (1.25mm) at 46 lbs
Tennis experience/background: I played high school tennis and currently play recreationally. Regular hitting partners are strong 4.0s and 4.5s.
Describe your playing style: Primarily an aggressive baseliner trying to incorporate more of an all-court game
Current racquet/string setups: 2019 Babolat Pure Aero w/ Tier One Black Knight 1.28mm mains and Ghost Wire 1.27 crosses at 50 lbs. Previously a Wilson 6.1 95 16x18 loyalist.
How many hours did you play with the racquet? 20 hrs

Comments on racquet performance for each stroke (each section should be 3-5 sentences minimum):

Groundstrokes:

This is a very consistent racket from a pros/cons perspective in that the same strengths and weaknesses are basically present in all strokes. A lot of the same themes will recur. On groundstrokes, it feels a little bulkier through the air compared to what the specs suggest. The strange part about this is that when it makes contact with the ball, all that mass at the tip seems to disappear, and the racket suddenly feels light and vulnerable on both wings for topspin groundstrokes. This wasn’t as blatant on slices but still noticeable enough. In terms of power, it’s a tad less than what I had expected given the specs. There certainly isn’t any free power oozing out of the stick, but I’m also a little hesitant to consider it completely underpowered because the specs have to be taken into consideration. This is a platform stick out of the box, and I would imagine that there would be at least some lead on every one of these sticks. The trajectory of the 16x19 pattern was erratic. It seems dense, but the trajectory is fairly high for a 95” 16x19 frame, making it similar to the Ultra Pro 16x19 and lower than any Prestige Pro.

Serves:
I have never had much luck extracting enough serve power out of any Dunlop 200 series stick that I’ve tried, and this was no exception. In fact, it may have been the most gutless of the 200s that I have hit with. I felt the low swingweight the most on serves, and it showed in the resulting ball. I demo’d a bunch of rackets (some with fairly similar specs) alongside the CX200 tour 16x19 such as the Ezone 98, Extreme Tour, Ultra Pro 16x19, 360+ prestige pro, and 2015 blade 16x19. The dunlop consistently clocked the lowest speeds on my pocket radar by a few MPHs. However, due to the higher trajectory off the stringbed and lack of mass, it hits a pretty decent second serve since the ball is loaded with spin despite the lack of weight or speed on the ball.

Volleys:
I’ll be the first to say that volleys aren’t the strongest of my strokes. However, the cx200 tour 16x19 is fairly maneuverable at net and is somewhere in the middle of stable and unstable. It never felt super unstable unless the ball was hit toward the top of the hoop. Like all the other strokes, it left me wanting to add lead around 10 and 2. I believe the racket would be a much more solid volleying stick with the added weight. Unless the ball was hit too far out of the sweetspot, there was not much twisting of the frame.

Serve returns:
Despite the lack of weight in the hoop, the racket was solid on serve returns. I did have to make sure to get my weight moving forward and make clean contact because the return would land severely short otherwise. I would say the high trajectory really helps with returns with this racket because while there isn't much power to offer, there weren’t too many returns being dumped into the net. The downside of this would be that any returns that were hit even slightly away from the sweetspot were popping up and landing somewhere between the net and the opposite service line.

Comments on racquet performance in each area (should be 2-3 sentences minimum)

Power/Control
:
The racket has borderline adequate power given the specs. It certainly won’t have as much power as sticks with higher SW, but I felt that this frame could have enough power with a couple grams of lead. The control aspect is what I struggled the most with. Directional control was perfectly fine, but the trajectory and depth was too erratic for my tastes. My impression is that this is due to the string spacing. The crosses are incredibly tightly spaced in the middle and the mains are evenly spaced throughout the frame, so the distance between the crosses is much shorter than the distance between the mains at the sweetspot. This causes the racket to lack bite on the ball and make it hard to know where the ball is going. When making contact, it feels like there is some give before the mains bite into the ball, and by that time, the ball is ready to leave the stringbed. This makes it incredibly hard to predict the trajectory and the resulting depth of the ball. I am not quite sure what this string spacing is for, but not knowing how deep the ball will land makes it a wild frame to use.

Top Spin/Slice:
For a 95 sq in 16x19 pattern stick, it has a fair amount amount of spin, but it could have so much more if the crosses were spaced out a bit different. The lack of immediate bite on the ball like on any other 16x19 decreases the spin potential in my opinion. Slices were better with this stick because of how tightly spaced the crosses are. There is plenty of bite on the ball on the slice and it’s not hard to keep the ball low.

Comfort:
One of the best things about this stick is the comfort. They did a great job of vibration dampening with this frame, and it feels plush on contact even strung with full poly, almost to a fault (described in the Feel section). Shots outside of the sweetspot aren’t jarring or uncomfortable.. There wasn’t a single moment during this playtest where i thought this stick was not supremely comfortable, so I definitely think this stick is one to consider for those looking for a smaller frame with comfort.

Feel:
Previous 200 serious have had great and direct feel, but this CX200 tour is incredibly muted. While it does a great job of vibration dampening, it also does a great job of eliminating any ball feel. This lack of ball feel coupled with the lack of bite on the ball makes it really hard to play with confidently. There are sticks that are very muted that provide good feedback, but this isn’t one of them. It just feels numb.

Maneuverability:
The maneuverability is a bit confusing for me. Swinging it through the air gives off the impression that the SW is closer to 325, but it completely disappears on contact. Despite this, it’s still relatively easy to swing off the ground or at net. I wish the racket would have felt a little more maneuverable so that it would be easier to add lead to the hoop to make up for its shortcomings.

Stability:
This is an expected weakness of the racket as a platform frame, so lack of mass in the hoop makes it feel unstable on contact even though there isn't much twisting. It just feels like the ball is winning against the racket. Even after making clean contact, the racket leaves a lot to be desired when driving through the ball or hitting flat serves. The stability can definitely be fixed with lead, but in stock form, it’s really tough to use stock against bigger hitters.

General reaction/comments on overall performance:
I had very high hopes for this racket. The specs are enticing, and it seems that the sweetest feeling rackets only come in 18x20. I was hoping this would be one for the 16x19 fanboys, but it came up short on all fronts. It lacks control, feel, and predictability. The way the crosses are spaced out makes it really difficult to get a predictable controlled response, and it’s just extremely muted. I do think this racket would perform better with lead, but the lack of feel and bite made it an easy pass on experimenting with adding weight to the frame. Comparable rackets include the Ultra Pro 16x19, Head Extreme Tour, and the Head Prestige Pro, and i think all 3 of those frames are superior to the Dunlop CX200 Tour 16x19. Overall, this was not the experience that I had hoped for, but I definitely want to thank Dunlop and TW for the opportunity.
 

mogo

Semi-Pro
Racquet Model: Dunlop Tour 18x20
String and tension used for test: Hyper G 17 g at 38pds/ 40pds
Tennis experience/background: 90% Singles player. Rated NTRP: 5.0/UTR: 9
Describe your playing style (i.e. serve & volley): Grinder/Baseline Counter puncher
Current racquet/string setups: Blade 18x20 and Yonex Tour 98 with Hyper-G 17g @ 40pds
How many hours did you play with the racquet? Over 40hrs.


-Groundstrokes: Solid groundies and will not get pushed around. This is a great racquet to drill with and groove your strokes as it will not disappoint. In singles this stick would is an issue for me as I felt it was underpowered. I can generate my own pace but I would have to swing out more than I would like. Since I am a counterpuncher it would force me to be extra aggressive. Compared to my 18x20 v7 Blade, it just gives me more easy power and a deeper ball on court. I added lead to 3 and 9 but I only liked the racquet in stock form. My only option would be to try a 35ish tension to see if I could get the spring that I feel in a 98 head size. Directional control was solid, you can put the ball anywhere without worrying about overhitting, but it would be what I consider a neutral ball. No jarring or vibrations from hitting a heavy ball back.

-Serves: Really good on serves. I think that Dunlop used the right spec using a 319 swingweight. My usual SW is in the 330 range but I did not mind using the 319 SW. Serves are pinpoint accuracte and kick serves are very good. You can hammer serves and be confident that you will get pinpoint accuracy. If you need to move your opponent wide or kick high to come into the net, this is a great stick. I feel doubles players would be more geared toward this racquet as precision is very good.

-Volleys: Extremely solid and you can carve the angles without hesitiation. This is where a doubles driven player would fall in love with this racquet. Control is superbe and you can put away volleys at will. Drop shots are on point. You can move and shift the court space to get an easy shot.

-Serve returns: I liked the chip returns, but had trouble hitting through the ball. Returns were landing short and low when hitting aggressive but slice was low and fast. I would like more easy power on returns. I am at 40 pds, but may need to go lower in the 35 range. I feel I need more spring from the stick. If you are looking to attack the net, then this is a better option as the ball will stay low. But sometimes I like to hit a high heavy return and I felt I had to be overly aggressive for my personal game.

Power-6 Power was ok, but not what I am used to even at a low tension. Maybe due to the 95sq head size. I felt that I had to fight to get extra pop. And in the point play I could lose ground if I wasn’t swinging full force. If you add lead tape you can get some extra power but I do think it can get too heavy over a match.

Control-8 Control was where I felt this stick shined and really took over the playtest. If in a rally or practice, this is a beast. You can easily hit a ball that your practice partner can handle and setup for. Match play was where it would need extra pop. Overall the control for getting a ball to a target was great. I could get the ball to areas just not with the pace I am familiar with.

Top Spin-7 I really liked the topspin but I was missing the plow that I am used to hitting a heavy ball. You can play defense and really push back heavy shots with ease. I feel if you generate your own pace this stick will only help on the control side. I can see why Kevin Anderson would be hitting with this stick.

Slice-9 PINPOINT!! Was a pleasure to slice and chip. Scaple like precision when attacking the net. If you have a onehander and love to slice this is your best option for being aggressive with the slice.

Comfort-6 The leather grip was harsh on my hands at first. I tried to use a replacement grip but didn’t like the feel. I put the leather grip back on and it was better after getting used a couple times. The frame is solid and I didn't feel any jarring or twisting, at contact, it was smooth. Reminds me of the BLX TOUR 90 with the beam.

Feel-8 I had a lot of touch and feel. For an 18x20 it had great feel. I had no issues with drop shots or lobs, the feel and control are big highlights on this playtest.

Maneuverability- 9 Being a 95sq inch head this has great maneuverability to hit. I did not feel any lag or sluggish strokes. At net its great and if you are a serve and volley player this is a great option.

Stability-8 It is stable and solid. Some lead was ok but it did really affect serving so have not found the right combo yet. Tried using a couple variations of lead but ended up sticking with stock form. But with or without lead this racquet is stable and solid.

General reaction/comments on overall performance: I like the racquet and feel it is a great option for players that want to have a control oriented stick. If you are a doubles player this will only help you hone in accuracy and hit windows. For singles it just doesn’t have the punch that I usually like. But if you are a big hitter looking for solid control, this will be a great option. The beam is great and was comfortable overall throughout the playtest. I would love to see a 98 tour version 18x20, but all the other options are 16x19. Overall, I really do like this stick. My goal will be to try to find a lower tension and lead tape combo that will help with getting extra pop. I do like the control, it is easy to change direction and move the ball at will.

Thank You to Dunlop and TW for another great opportunity to play with a great frame!!!!!!!
 

bigserving

Hall of Fame
Racquet Received - DUNLOP CX 200 Tour 16 x19 2021

TENNIS EXPERIENCE / BACKGROUND
- Self taught, current 4.5 league and tournament level player. Grew up playing multiple sports but mostly baseball. I have accumulated decades of tennis playing experience. Spectate for about 50 days of pro tennis including ATP, WTA, USTA Circuits, and WTT, each year (pre Covid 19, of course.)

DESCRIBE PLAYING STYLE - Solid 4.5 singles and doubles, one-hand off both sides, flat fastball first serve (s/b no surprise there) with a wicked yet effectively inconsistent kicker for a second serve. All court player that can rally, chip and charge, and serve / volley on offense, and be an all-court defender that loves to attack and dominate at the net.

CURRENT RACQUET/STRING SETUPS - The current racquet is the Dunlop CX 300 Tour with a 16 x 19 string pattern. The regular string setup is a full set of Dunlop Black Widow 17 gauge, strung 55 lbs x 55 lbs.

STRING AND TENSION USED FOR TEST - For this test, I strung it up with enclosed Dunlop Explosive Tour 16 and I liked it. Being a Raiders fan, you really can't go wrong with any string that comes in Silver and Black packaging! The frame was played at tensions of 50 lbs X 50 lbs and restrung after about 10 hours.

NUMBER OF HOURS PLAYED WITH THE RACQUET - I managed to get in around 10 hours of hitting with each string set about 20 total.

COMMENTS ON RACQUET PERFORMANCE:

GROUNDSTROKES -
Overall, groundstrokes are really pretty nice with this frame. Very consistent. The lighter weight frame did take some time for me to get used to. The light weight actually helped improve my strokes by forcing me to take a shorter backswing, and make a faster stroke and extend through the hitting area when compared to my recent more powerful frame. That is something that I have been trying to get myself to do more consistently for a lifetme.

By comparison to current racquet models, this frame is on the side of being low powered. There is plenty of power to be had in this frame, but most of it is going to come from the racquet head speed rather than frame bulk and / or stiffness. The light weight easily allows the frame goes through the air with plenty of head speed. Even with the light weight, there is plenty of head stability so the frame does supply plow through on every stroke.

This frame allows pinpoint control on most strokes. You may have to work a little and be technically correct in order to get your own desired power, spin, and pace, but the ball will go where you want with the depth that you want. My opponent's opinion was they did not notice much of a loss of pace because the amount of control makes it easy to hit great angles even from the center of the court. The light weight, open string pattern, and the Explosive Tour strings makes this frame setup quite accessible to spin.

SERVES - Pace on my first serve suffered just a bit with this frame. The lighter frame goes faster through the air but the lower power at contact but made me lose a foot or so on my first serve. Still yet, overall the excellent control that comes with this frame makes it an effective serving weapon. There is plenty of spin available with this racquet and string setup especially on slice and kick serves. There was plenty of movement on the ball flight of slice serves and excellent jump off of the court on kick serves. Even with the reduction in raw power, the pinpoint accuracy makes this frame quite effective and fun to serve with.

VOLLEYS - Easy to volley with this racquet. The light weight of the frame makes this racquet lightning quick and supplies great control at the net. I found it to have plenty of comfort and accuracy on touch, and on drop volleys. It is also easy to get some pop on drive volleys with excellent control on depth.

SERVE RETURNS - The low power aspect of this frame is most noticeable, to me, on service returns. On returns of big serves when I did not get the opportunity to get my feet fully set and take a swing, I was just a little underpowered. Some of the lack of power was offset by the pinpoint control. The pinpoint control and availability of spin certainly helped offset the lack of pure power. I think that serve returns will be helped a lot much with addition of some weight in or around the hoop.

SERVICE RETURNS - The power aspect of this frame is most noticeable, to me, on service returns. On returns where I did not get the opportunity to get my feet completely set, and stab returns, there was still enough power to not start the point on the defensive behind short returns. Some of the power could be tempered by the type and tension of the strings. I think that serve returns will be helped a lot much with addition of some the balance of the swing weight toward the head.

Comments on racquet performanance

POWER/CONTROL
- As mentioned, this frame is on the side of being low powered in comparison with most other racquets on the market today. That being said, it provides plenty of playable power and is also very playable in stock form. The control offered by this frame is remarkably high and helps to compensate for any power loss. This frame will give you to goods to, control the game.

TOPSPIN/SLICE - Some of the effectiveness of this frame will come from self generated racquet head speed. That head speed will also translate into additional available spin on slice and topspin groundstrokes. Any perceived loss in power can be compensated by and increase in available spin.

COMFORT - Though the frame is relatively light, it offers significant shock absorption. Overall, this is a very, very nice frame. It is stays comfortable on all shots and even after long sessions and periods of play. It is on par with the current trend of lighter weight, "Tour" molds. It plays comfortable in stock form and can be easily modified to personal preference using different strings, tensions, and perimeter weighting if preferred or desired.

FEEL - This particular frame comes with a more muted version of the famous Dunlop thud! But, because of the light static weight, there is also an enormous amount of feel when playing with this frame. Also, the thin-beam design adds much to the overall positive feel aspect of the racquet.

MANEUVERABILITY - The lower static weight makes for a very maneuverable frame. It is quite easy to get the head in position for reflex volleys. Getting the frame back and into proper position to return wide serves is quite easy with this lighter frame.

STABILITY- This was quite impressive to me. Yes, the frame is light. But it has a smartly well balanced weight distribution in it's engineering and design so that I had plenty of plow-through on all strokes. I will assign my own off-center hits to operator error. Even on some of those shots, the frame still performed very well. When taking a big swing, the frame remained stable with very little twist on off-center shots.

GENERAL REACTION/COMMENTS OF OVERALL PERFORMANCE - I played this entire playtest with the racquet in stock form mostly because I wanted to feel the factory form. It took a little time for me to get re-accustomed to the light weight. For me, the stock weight is a bit on the low end of what is an optimal playable weight for me.

I can't see any glaring weakness in this frame. It is comfortable. If offers pinpoint control on every shot. It plays consistently, it does everything well, and it will work for all levels of players with different types of games. The 16 x 19 string bed makes it accessible to plenty of spin. Because of the consistent balance of the design of the stock frame, it will be easy for any player to customize, or modify to their individual preference.

I even got some positive comments about the color of the frame. Its an eye catcher. It is kind of a metallic maroonish cool looking color. Very cool. As is my usual, in the upcoming weeks, I am planning to continue to play and test this frame with some different perimeter weighting and different string tensions. During that time, I will definitely test with the Dunlop Iconic All strings that came with the package.

This frame may become Dunlop's modern version of the old Dunlop Maxply Fort woodie that is so prevalent in so many classic photos.

Thank you Tennis Warehouse for the playlets and yay Dunlop for making a very fine frame.
 

taylor15

Professional
Racquet Model: CX 200 98 16x19
String and tension used for test: First 8 hours – Dunlop Iconic All 16/Explosive 16 at 52/50. Next 7 hours Wilson NXT 16/Luxilon Element 16L at 54/51
Tennis experience/background: Started playing after my college baseball career came to an end. Played for a few years seriously and was competing at a 4.0 level. Came back to the game in summer 2019 and playing B locally (3.5 – 4.0). Just started working with a coach to improve further and enter some 4.0 tournaments this summer.
Describe your playing style (i.e. serve & volley): All court player, some serve/volley. I hit a pretty flat SW forehand, and a two handed backhand. I rely on my serve during a lot of match. Primarily a net player in doubles.
Current racquet/string setups: Ultra Tour, slightly modified and 338 grams strung. Wilson NXT 16/Luxilon Element 16L at 52/50
How many hours did you play with the racquet? About 12 hours in match play, 3 hours of ball machine practice, and a couple hour rallying with my son.

Comments on racquet performance for each stroke (each section should be 3-5 sentences minimum):
-Groundstrokes: On my forehand wing I initially was hitting the ball long, but once I added a bit more of a vertical follow through I was able to get more spin that with the UT which helped my shots stay in the court. Overall I was impressed with the directional control since I’m coming from an 18x20 string pattern. On the backhand I was able to generate very good power and depth. I played a 3 setter last night as my final match for this review and was able to hit a very solid cross court backhand return on the ad side that awarded me with a couple of service return winners. I found power to be good for a frame in this segment and with the dense middle of the string bed the adjustment wasn’t too bad from the UT

I was able to control the racquet much more with my second set of strings, likely due to the higher tension as the Iconic All/Explosive is very similar to the NXT/Element in feel and spin.

-Serves: This was the hardest part of the review for me. I am used to winning some points of my first serve, whether aces or unreturnable. With the CX200 I couldn’t get the power on serve that I need on my flat serves. I had to resort to a bit more spin and hitting wider in the box to push opponents back. My second serve didn’t suffer as much as I was able to put more easy spin on a kick serve. While the power wasn’t there for the second, I had very few double faults. I think about 2g at 12 would help with the serve power, and I plan to try that in the future.

-Volleys: There was a bit of flutter on volleys, however reaction volleys came pretty easy. The more open string pattern helped with low volleys and I was able to lift them over the net. It was a fun racquet to play doubles with as I spent most of my time at the net. Directional control was okay, and my backhand volleys were great – I think the grip shape works well for me. This could also be due to being a long time Dunlop user before moving to the UT. Swinging volleys were the one thing that didn’t work out as well. I am used to the directional control I get with the UT, and I was missing lines on swinging volleys that were aimed at the alleys.

-Serve returns: Serve returns were consistent, but on the forehand wing lacked power for me. Heavy servers could take advantage of me when blocking back serves. The lack of weight made it difficult to just block back like I would with the UT, or with the old Dunlop Biomemetic 200s I played with in the past. On weaker serves or second serves I could get the ball back but on the forehand wing it wasn’t a thread for my opponent like I can hit with the UT. On the backhand wing it was different. I was able to hit a really solid 2HBH return with this frame. The lighter weight makes it easy to accelerate with no real backswing and my cross court shots were better than the UT at times.

Power/Control- Power was okay for an open pattern, light weight player’s racquet. It is definitely underpowered for anyone coming from something like a Pure Strike or Radical (racquets I find similar) but I think it was adequate. Control was pretty good, but was a lot different than what I am accustomed to coming form an 18x20 frame.

Top Spin/Slice- Top spin was easy to come by with the open string pattern and easy of creating racquet head speed. Top spin on my backhand was much better and I was able to generate very good depth. Slice was a bit floaty on the backhand wing, but I was able to adjust and keep them lower, but not as penetrating as with the UT. I would need more weight in the head to help with depth. Forehand slices were also hard to keep down, but I was able to put a lot of side spin on them.

Comfort- Comfort was very good with this frame. I did play with a multi in the mains which likely helped. I had a wrist injury the day before the CX200 delivered to my house and I had more comfort playing with this frame than anything else in my bag except my UTs.
Feel- Feel was a struggle for me. While the comfort was there, I couldn’t tell where the ball was hitting the string bed a lot of the time. I would like to say I’m exaggerating when I say I thought I hit a volley solid until I noticed my dampener flying across the court. I like dampened frames, but I think Dunlop has these almost too dampened for me.

Maneuverability- Overall the frame was very maneuverable. At the net this really helped with reaction volleys. I had to work to get timing down on half volleys and groundstrokes in the beginning due to the lower swingweight than I am used to. Overall, no complaints.

Stability- Stability was a bit of an issue against some of the better players that I hit against. I had to put this racquet down when hitting against one of my partners who is a strong 4.0 if not 4.5 b/c I felt I was getting pushed around. It wasn’t an issue against weaker players, however I don’t think that’s an asset.

General reaction/comments on overall performance: Overall this is a pretty solid offering from Dunlop. I would put it on part with the MFil 200 plus (97 sq in standard) that I played back in college for a while, or the biomimetic 300 16x19. I am going to continue playtesting the racquet with some mods. I plan to add leather grip, and 2 grams at 12 to get the weight/swing weight closer to my ultra tours. If that helps get the power level up just a bit more I could see this racquet saying in my bag. I’ve been playing 18x20 frames for too long to see myself making a full time switch right now, but I do find a lot of advantages to the 16x19 pattern in the serves I can hit out wide in doubles.

Thank you Dunlop and Tennis Warehouse for the opportunity! I is awesome to have another Dunlop frame in the bag again.
 

Pronate

Rookie
Dunlop CX 200 Tour 18x20 Review:


String and tension used for test: Yonex PolyTour Pro 16L. Tension at 38lbs.


Tennis experience/background: Played 10 years, 4.0 level player. Hit with college players and have some experience coaching.

Describe your playing style (i.e. serve & volley): Aggressive baseliner with a strong set of groundstrokes. I like to go to the net to finish points.

Current racquet/string setups: Head Prestige Youtek Graphene (Lead at 3’ 9’ 1’ and 11’) w/ Head Hawk @ 40lb

How many hours did you play with the racquet? Currently, I have hit with the racquet for about 15 hours. I plan to hit with it for a total of 20 hours by the end of the month.

Comments on racquet performance for each stroke (each section should be 3-5 sentences minimum):

Groundstrokes:

I thought the racquet had to offer in terms of groundstrokes from the baseline. I enjoy hitting forehands off this racquet. The control is there. The power is there too, once I found how to distribute my weight accordingly. My shots were fairly precise but noticed improvements as the playtests went on. Depth, pace and control of net clearance improved over time after I had more confidence with the frame. I liked how I was able to comfortably hit sharp angles from the backhand side. On the forehand side, I could hit approach shots as usual too.

8.5/10


Serves:

In my opinion, this was my least favorite aspect of the frame. On average my first serves are 110mph and my second serves are 65-75mph. My serves were a lot slower, where my first serve was barely faster than my second serve. I felt less sure with the flat serves deeper into the review. To adjust, I decided to use a Tourna over grip over the original leather grip. Mainly this helped me reduce any grip slippage and I could serve with a more forceful follow through at contact. Placement was not the best, and during this playtest I had more double faults. I feel like the initial experience is due to not being used to a leather grip. I will update this in the future.

7/10


Volleys:


Volleys were great with this frame. The string pattern 18x20 really shined here. I felt confident with hitting drop shots. Overheads were comfortable as well. The size of the frame gave it a good balance.

7.5/10


Serve returns:

The serve return were at least average. I felt comfortable hitting on the rise for kick serves. This was another area where the racquet had enough power, and I even overhit some returns. I felt this aspect was neutral.


Comments on racquet performance in each area (should be 2-3 sentences minimum)


7.5/10


Power/Control: I felt the power was reasonable. I can generate my own pace, but at times it would not have hurt to have more. Also need to hit with heavier hitters to fully assess how it can redirect pace. One other thing is I hit my forehand two ways, either with a straight arm for approaches or with a bent arm for rallies. I felt that the racquet suited shots involving my bent arm FH, rather than the flat one.


8.5/10


Top Spin/Slice: My slice was solid with lots of depth. My spin was good, I was able to keep neutral cross court rallies. Lobs were ok. My backhand had enough loop when I stepped in.

One area where I felt that the brush up needed to be exaggerated was when the ball landed closer than usual and thus effecting contact point. I think spin potential is there, but the right amount of time on string bed is needed.

8/10

Comfort: I enjoyed swinging the frame. There was no signs of serious discomfort, and my shoulder and elbow felt at ease. This needs to be revisited as I used a soft poly string at low tension (38lbs).


8.8/10


Feel: The feel was ok. My frames are normally stiff, so I do not have a hug preference for very stiff frames.

7.5/10


Maneuverability:

The frame felt great and easy to maneuver. It felt like swinging my Prestige MP. The frame felt like using a 98sq in racquet.

9/10


Stability: The racquet felt well built. Just a note, but the neck of my frame has a small dent.

8/10

General reaction/comments on overall performance:

I plan to experiment with adding different grips, restringing with varying polys and tensions.

The Dunlop CX 200 18x20 Tour is a great racquet to have. It feels similar to my other player frames, and so I may not even buy a spare because of how easy it is to adjust between the different racquet models. If anyone doesn't already have a similar racquet I would recommend getting some of these!

This racquet did an excellent job overall. My volleys and groundstrokes felt great. The leather grip felt a little slippery and that could have impacted by services. One thing to note is that the racquet paint fades easily, and there is a slight dent in the frame at the neck before playing or stringing.

(Racquet Comparison: I like this better than my Wilson Pro Open, Wilson Blade 2013 BLX Silver 16x19, Wilson Blade BLX Gold 18x20, and Wilson Blade BLX Tour Gold 18x20. I still prefer my Head Prestige Youtek Graphene MP)

Thank you Dunlop and TW. A great experience and a great tool to have on the court!

8/10
 

jwocky

Rookie
A thank you to Tennis Warehouse and SRixon/Dunlop for the play test opportunity. I hope this review is found to be helpful.

Racquet Model:
2021 Dunlop CX 200 Tour 18x20 with factory leather grip

Racquet Specs:
Stock Mod’ed
Unstrung
w = 315g, b = 310mm
Strung SG w = 330g, b = 314mm w = 355g, b = 307mm
Strung CP w = 331g, b = 316mm w = 357g, b = 308mm

String and tension used for test:
SG
Toalson Asterisk 1.30mm 26.5kg (58.3#)
CP Tecnifibre BC 1.25mm 23.5kg (51.7#)


Summary:
While I do not consider myself a racquet-holic, I admit the occasional new frame experience can be an addictive one and this frame had me searching various sites.

Playing with this frame was a pleasant experience to the point I would consider investing in a few more of them for the long-term. Other than an initial short adjustment period to the stock frame weight, the hitting experience was great and the frame felt slightly muted with good shock absorption. There is plenty of opportunity to customize for those with a preference for swinging 350+g. As one who gravitates toward heavier frames (360-370)g, this frame stock played really well for me.

Tennis experience/background:
Pre-COVID 4 to 5 times weekly about 10 to 15 hours mostly on hard courts. During COVID 3 times weekly about 9-10 hours hard courts. Played from age 10 to 25 y.o. on red clay (75%), nearly two decade break and then have been playing weekly after that for several years. Played for the high school team (S2, D1), then in university intra-mural tournaments, and now play competitively as well as in social groups. Current mix of singles 20% and doubles 80% with most of the doubles in competitive leagues and skills matched social groups.

Describe your playing style (i.e. serve & volley):
All court player focused on point construction using variety in ball placement, and speed around the court. In doubles, good at the net and at finding angles with top spin dippers, drop shots and other placement shots. I can increase the power when needed, but tend to operate relaxed and focused on shot depth and placement - so more control oriented.

Current racquet/string setups:
Dunlop Aerogel 4D 200 Tour 16x18 with a variety of strings (co-poly 23.5-25kg, sg 26.5-28.0# range, ng 28.0-29.0#). Other racquets in the rotation - Aerogel 4D 200 18x20 (occasionally MW200 /M-Fil 200 18x20), and Prince EXO3 93 (green) 16x18. Gave my Volkl Organix 10 325s to my son - a 98 is head sprays for me.

How many hours did you play with the racquet?
just over 25 hours with a breakdown as shown
Stock Mod’ed
SG
4.0 6.0
CP 6.0 9.0

Comments on racquet performance for each stroke:
- Groundstrokes

I had a high comfort level with this frame on a full array of ground strokes because of the familiar 95 head size even in stock form. Even with a preference for frames weight more than 355g I was able to gel with this frame in stock form with both string set ups. There was always access to control, but also power when I needed when pushed back by the other side especially after the light modification of a thicker over grip and addition of a Tourna power cap.
Both sliced backhand returns and fully driven forehand returns of service were lethal. I could hit cross court forehand dippers for both singles and doubles with little adjustment after the first hour with the frame. Depth on traded baseline rallies was good in stock form and better with weight added. The frame was very comfortable and the new (for me) technology did not seem like gimmick.

- Serves
The frame moves well through the air and serving with the CX 200 Tour 18x20 was smooth, effortless and offered a recognizable level of accuracy and controlled power. I was able to hit a full array of my serves with confidence and that lifted my game and is reflected in my opinion of this frame as a good serving frame especially if some are able to tweak and achieve their desired specs. A little more weight provided just the right mod to generate an even more effective serve. 


- Volleys
The racquet is maneuverable in the air and easy at the net, yet it was just okay for finishing volleys in stock form. With some weight added it was easier to put away poached backhand volleys at a stretch against more accomplished harder hitting players. The Sonic Core and FlexBooster dampening technology was something I could appreciate when meeting or punching volleys.


- Serve Returns
In stock form the racquet felt best when returns were approached with an aggressive mindset because there was plenty of control. In stock form, blocked/chipped returns were less effective or sat up to be punished. With just a little added weight, these returns became more comfortable, predictable and effective especially on a back hand sliced return sent deep. Overall, I felt I would need more time with this frame to feel more confident on returns.



Comments on racquet performance in each area:
- Power/Control

In stock form, this frame rewards a full swing, but one has to be prepared to keep this up for the duration of a long match. With weight added, one can play a little more relaxed, which works better for me mentally and physically, and allows me the option to ramp up for power when needed or to dial down depending on the opponent’s style.


- Top Spin/Slice
I feel comfortable with 18x20 95 sq. in. frames and these are the biggest head size with which I play most often for competitive matches. Generating top spin on groundstrokes or using a slice for drop shots or driving slices back on returns was not problem with a bit of added weight. For a string patten that is fairly close to prior generations of the Dunlop 200 18x20, I feel the topspin production was consistent and comparable.


- Comfort
The 2021 CX Tour 200 is the most comfortable of the 200 series Dunlop frame in my collection in stock form - not adjusting for weight differences in the stock. I guess the technology actually works or my other frames are just so old that the new technology can be felt in a real tangible way.
 This was a nice soft feeling frame.

- Feel
The 200 series from Dunlop is my favorite for being able feel and place the ball. Yes, there good (muted vs harsh) feedback even on mishits even though I feel the feel is influenced by the DT/age of the stringbed.

- Maneuverability
This 200 Tour frame is lighter than it’s predecessors from two generations or prior, so it does come across as more maneuverable than its elder cousins. With a little bit of tweaking this frame can easily become a go to for a long singles match. In stock form it should meet the requirements of many doubles players.


- Stability
Overall, the frame seems quite stable with room for those who are ultra-sensitive to customize twist weight. I had few, if any, issues with stability except when returning against one really big hitter who wants to crush every ball.


General reaction/comments on overall performance:
Paint
: The cosmetic is attractive in a classy understated fashion. The finish gives me pause as I believe the older enamel-type finish is a more durable one. I am not a racquet scraper and typically will use a light head tape to increase the longevity of bumper guards.

Grommets: Seven piece (head guard, throat, grommet strips 7-8/4-5, 8-10/2-4, 10-2) skips 8HT, 10HT on the 18x20. This appears consistent with the prior two iterations of the CX 200 series; however, it is is a change from the older Dunlop 200s I have that are single skip at throat/double skips at head.

Stringing: This stick can be strung in the Dunlop recommended one-piece in more than one way for those concerned with aesthetics on the outside of the frame. A two piece is also possible without complications. For the playtest set ups I used one piece each time.

String Pattern: With the exception of the skips that has an effect on the outer mains and crosses, the CX 200 Tour 18x20 string spacing pattern on the inner 14M 15X hitting area is very similar to prior editions of the 200 18x20 - M-Fil Muscle Weave, Aerogel 4D. The three crosses at both the head and the throat are wider apart, and there may be perceptible but non-material (to play) spacing differences in the crosses 14 to 16.
 

ryushen21

Hall of Fame
Here's my inital but not yet final review.

Dunlop CX200 Tour 18x20 Review


String and tension used for test: Solinco Hyper G 17g 47m/45c

Tennis experience/background: 15 years tennis experience using a variety of frames, current High School tennis coach

Describe your playing style (i.e. serve & volley): Aggressive baseliner with all-court play mixed in

Current racquet/string setups: Yonex EZone 100 (stock) w/ Hyper G 17g @ 47/45

How many hours did you play with the racquet? At the time of this writing, I have a little over 10 hours playing with the frame and have made no modifications.


Comments on racquet performance for each stroke (each section should be 3-5 sentences minimum):

Groundstrokes: Based on the specs of this frame, I was expecting the groundstrokes to be more similar to the Wilson Ultra Tour 2.0. On the forehand, it was easy enough to generate a relatively deep ball but I found the spin potential to be lower than expected. Landing the ball deeper into the court required big, full cuts every time although I could get more depth by sacrificing some topspin and hitting more eastern. I would say that I was comfortable hitting my forehand but had a hard time hitting the forehand I wanted to. The backhand was more enjoyable and something about this grip shape and the weight/balance absolutely lends itself to a one-handed backhand. To be clear, I hit with a two-handed backhand primarily but the one-hander just feels natural. On the two-hander, I found it easy to mix up my backhand shots and could drive or loop my shots more with confidence. Depth was a bit lacking compared to my usual frame but the backhand was generally a more enjoyable shot than the forehand for me on this frame. The swing weight was definitely lacking here to provide that added plow to make groundies more potent.

Serves: The balance and weight of this frame made it almost perfect for serves. First serves came off with better than expected pop and I was able to hit my spots easily. I did not see as much action on my second serves though. While I still got a decent amount of kick, it was not as high as my current frame and my opponents found it easier to return. Slice serves had good movement but suffered a similar effect to the kick serves.

Volleys: Volleys are an absolute joy with this frame. At the net, I found it to be very stable and provide a good response on volleys. Directional control was superb. However, the best part was the racquet’s ability to absorb and redirect pace. It allowed me to redirect shots and change the tempo of the game. This may have been my favorite aspect of the racquet.

Serve returns: Another aspect of this racquet that is outstanding. I found a great amount of confidence in my returns with this frame knowing that I could attack with a full swing and keep the ball in the court. But defensive returns were surprisingly good as well. Against bigger serves, I could block serves back while keeping the ball low to keep me competitive in the point.


Comments on racquet performance in each area (should be 2-3 sentences minimum)

Power/Control: Even though I was playing with full poly, I would still consider this to be a relatively low-powered frame. It requires full, aggressive swings to create action and get depth on the shots. The pattern on this frame is nice and tight but I did not get a sense of control coming off the strings. I knew where my shots were going because of my setup and swing execution not because the racquet was providing me with the feedback and confidence of control.

Top Spin/Slice: This frame felt like it was built for a flatter hitting style for sure. Brushing motions had to be exaggerated to a good degree to get comparable topspin to other 18x20 frames I’ve played with lately. It wasn’t that topspin wasn’t there, it just was not as much as I see in other similar frames. The slice on this frame was quite nice in the sense that I had no issues keeping my slice nice and low. So while some of the action may have been missing, that low angle made the shot tricky for my opponents to return.

General reaction/comments on overall performance: After hitting with this frame, it feels like Dunlop was trying to make a classic-style player’s frame with some modern flourishes but then got the whole process jumbled and ended up making neither. Rather than having that plush but responsive feel of old Prestiges or even the Ultra Tour, the frame comes across as so muted that it is nearly impossible to discern what kind of shot you hit upon making contact with the ball. There was also no noticeable thwack or thump sound when you hit the ball. If anything, it’s more of a dull thud. It also didn’t have the kind of power that is being seen in newer lines of player frames. I very much wanted to like the frame but I could not find a discernible groove with it in its present configuration.
I quoted my original post for reference as this post reflects my updated test of the modified frame.

Dunlop CX200 Tour 18x20

String and tension used for test: I changed up the string for this secondary outing and used the provided Dunlop Explosive Poly strung at 47/45.

How many hours did you play with the racquet? I've logged another 10 hours of playtest time with this frame in the modified setup.

Modifications: I've added 2 grams of lead across the 10/2 sections of the hoop. This has altered the balance to appx 4pts HL and added a noticeable amount of swing weight.


Groundstrokes: I found the groundstrokes to be more enjoyable with this configuration. The added swing weight gave groundstrokes more depth with a similar effort but the depth was still a bit lacking for my style of play. On the forehand side, hitting flat, driving shot swas still the best order for this frame. Topspin could be produced but at the cost of depth to a point where it was not a feasibly strategy in play. The backhand side was good as I prefer to drive more from that side. I hit a 2HBH but this frame is absolutely a 1-hander's dream. I think there is potential for this frame with something other than a full poly setup. Perhaps a gut/poly or multi/poly hybrid would allow for greater shot variety. 7/10

Serves: I definitely saw better first serves with the modifications in place. I could really come through and hit my spots with exceptional precision. It still took a fair amount of adjustment to get a decent kick/slice serve to work. I just was not able to produce the same level of action/response with this frame which led to a more timid second serve. 7/10

Volleys: Volleys are still one of the standout features of this frame. The frame feels incredibly stable on contact and the directional control is is superb. I was able to maneuver the frame quickly even with a less HL balance. This frame's ability to dissipate and redirect pace is probably its absolute best feature. 9+/10

Serve Returns: This got more enjoyable with the new configuration. I found greater confidence being aggressive on serve returns as I could return with depth. But the defensive returns saw the most improvement as I could really control the angle and depth even when I was just having to block shots back. 8/10


Power/Control: This is still to my senses a very low-powered racquet. If you want to hit flat and drive your shots that way, it may not appear that way. But if you prefer to hit with more topspin or play a more aggressive baseline style of game, you would most likely want to consider a hybrid string set up to boost the power output. The control of this frame can be considered good with the caveat that you also have good form and good setup on your shots. 8/10

In the remaining areas there wasn't really any perceptible change with the new setup so I'm just going to update with some numerical ratings: Comfort: 9/10, Feel: 5.5/10, Maneuverability: 9/10, Stability: 9/10.

General Reaction/Overall Comments:
The overall opinion of this frame hasn't changed much for me. There was a lot of potential in the frame from a design aspect and conceptual approach. But it still feels to me like they missed the mark in so many ways. The one thing that I will say is that this frame shines when playing doubles or if you are playing a game style that is not dependent on baseline bashing. It loves to come forward and play from the midcourt and up and it can create devastating results if that is where your happy zone is. 7.5/10

Thanks again to TW and Dunlop for the chance to take place in this playtest!
 

taylor15

Professional
On the CX 200 I have added a leather grip and 3g at 12. I’m getting much better feel and power from the frame. My second serves are kicking very high and I could take this to a match happily at this point. Still really enjoying the frame and the paint
 

cortado

Semi-Pro
Was very surprised when I demoed my CX 200 Tour last year, absolutely LOVED it. Would love to hear comparisons to the new one.
Did you demo 18x20 or 16x19? I'm looking for something to replace my PS90 Asian version, and I like using 17g synthetic gut, so I'm thinking 18x20 would be best for this.
 

SlvrDragon50

Semi-Pro
Did you demo 18x20 or 16x19? I'm looking for something to replace my PS90 Asian version, and I like using 17g synthetic gut, so I'm thinking 18x20 would be best for this.
I demoed the 18x20. Previously played with O3 Tour and still use an RF97. My play style is little top spin with precise control shots so 18x20 catered well to it.
 

ngoster

New User
Just had a hitting session with the CX 200 Tour 16x19 that I picked up from the board. I strung it with Iso-Speed Baseline Spin 17L mains @ 48# and Gosen OG Sheep Micro 17 crosses @ 53#. No weight modifications were made. I was only able to hit ground strokes and volleys with it but it was so much fun that I wanted to share my experience!

For comparison, I'm currently playing with a Clash 98 with the same string set up. On a good day, I think I fall slightly past the middle of the 4.0 spectrum. I have a semi-western FH and a one handed BH, although, I'm just starting to feel more comfortable hitting it.

I agree with all the previous reviews about the racquet's hitting profile. The thinner beam, lower swing weight and head light balance make it is a very quick swinging, control oriented racquet.

Groundstrokes: I can definitely feel that there wasn't as much mass behind the ball, but, at the same time, it didn't seem that the shots were slow getting through the court either. Comfort and stability were excellent. I didn't feel any discomfort in my arm. Off centered shots didn't cause any twisting and fast incoming shots didn't knock it back. Spin potential (topspin) is there but it's definitely easier for me to get topspin with the Clash 98. Although not very technical, I judge how much spin I'm getting by how much fuzz is left of the string bed. I was able to get fuzz on the CX but had to really focus on technic to get it. Shot trajectories remained on the flat side. Ball bounces stayed low more often than kicked up. Even when struck well, there were times when the shots landed short in front of the service line and didn't bounce back far enough causing my friend to have to reach. Even though the lack of mass seems like a short coming, I experienced a few benefits from the quickness of it. 1) It was was harder to get jammed. 2) Stroke preparation seemed easier. And 3) When 1 and 2 failed, the shots were still landing in. With the Clash when I felt the shot was going out, it would go out. With the CX, those same shots were landing in a lot.

Volleys: This was where the quickness and stability of the frame felt almost magical. The quickness and maneuverability made it feel like I was given extra time. Reaction and stretched volleys were much smoother with the CX. Volleys felt more crisp and sure. The Clash feels clunky with more mishits off the frame. Volleying with the CX was actually enjoyable which encourage me to come to the net more often.

Overall Comments: The quickness and maneuverability of the frame coupled with its low and precise shot trajectory make the CX a fun racquet to play with for doubles or if you like coming to the net. My initial plan was just to have the CX be the dedicated doubles racquet but, after hitting with it, the Clash made have some competition.
 
Top