I wouldn’t call head a brand from the past...Nice to see that brands of the past are beginning to put out some quality products..
Head too is stepping up once again..
We all benefit as now the others can not accept status quo..
I wouldn’t call head a brand from the past...Nice to see that brands of the past are beginning to put out some quality products..
Head too is stepping up once again..
We all benefit as now the others can not accept status quo..
Maybe mention which stick you got? Might be helpful...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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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 playing PS90, 16x19 full syn gut. No issues with spin.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.
I can't speak for the 16x19 version of the CX. The 18x20 is not particularly spin friendly in the experience that I have had with it so far.I'm playing PS90, 16x19 full syn gut. No issues with spin.
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 hoursNot 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?
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
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 UTsWhat strings and tension are you using?
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).Played today with the restrung and leaded racquet. There was a definite improvement. Further feedback to come.
Racquet Model: CX Tour
Typo, thank you for pointing that out. I playtested the standard cx 200Which Tour version did you test?
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.
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.Was very surprised when I demoed my CX 200 Tour last year, absolutely LOVED it. Would love to hear comparisons to the new one.
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.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.
This Dunlop (CX200 98” 2021) actually got me closer to what I need.
I added sorbothane strips at 3 and 9 ( 2g + 2g ). Now TW=16, SW=330.
I have been playing the CX 200 OS for a little while now and am really enjoying it. It has a measured SW of 316. I am at the point where I would like to demo the other racquets in this family. However, with my OS at 307 g and balance of 34 cm, I am trying to understand how the CX 200 at 323 g and 32.5 cm balance has a swingweight of 317.
It seems you've added a whooping 4 g and are already at 330. There's no way it started at 317. While most vendors just go along with what TW publishes, one lists the CX 200 at 326 which seems a lot more consistent with a 305 g modern racquet. That the tour and 18x20 are at 318 and 319 look suspicious too.
@Tennisist is it too late to measure the swingweight without your mods, if you didn't measure it before?
Has anyone else actually measured the SW themselves? I am trying to stay under 320, hence my interest in the non-OS models, but I'm having a hard time believing that's actually where they are.