Tennis Warehouse Playtest: Head MXG Racquets
Doc Hollidae
Hall of Fame
Had another hit with the MXG3. The strings are starting to lose their tension, so it'll be time for a restring. I'll be upping the tension a lb or two to help with the control. Serving with the MXG3 is pretty fun. There is plenty of effortless power and spin. I still think control is lacking a bit, but I'm hoping upping the tension will help. Despite the stiffness, I don't find this racket uncomfortable, so I think the longer mains do help with that.
I plan on adding some weight before my next outing. I think some additional weight will help add some weight to the ball and increase the stability. I'll probably try and bring the balance down to about 5-6 pts HL. That should also help with the control. I would be interested in seeing how the MXG technology would translate to a player's racket. Something with a slightly smaller head size and more weight.
I plan on adding some weight before my next outing. I think some additional weight will help add some weight to the ball and increase the stability. I'll probably try and bring the balance down to about 5-6 pts HL. That should also help with the control. I would be interested in seeing how the MXG technology would translate to a player's racket. Something with a slightly smaller head size and more weight.
haqq777
Legend
Very interesting. I thought it was a light racquet to begin with? What is the balance with stock static weight?
Doc Hollidae
Hall of Fame
It is a light racket, at least for my standards. According to the TW its 3 pts HL and around 11.1 oz. I prefer mine closer to 12 oz and 5-7 pts HL.
Shroud
G.O.A.T.
Pathfinder awl is a must imho
loosegroove
Hall of Fame
Strange people are having issues stringing. I had no problems getting two strings through the tie off grommets.
Shroud
G.O.A.T.
Sadly i didnt make the playtest so i would love to have such a problem. I recall having issues in the past and needing the pathfinder but lately i do t find myself using one
loosegroove
Hall of Fame
Got it. Thought you were referring to particular difficulty with the MXG rackets.
loosegroove
Hall of Fame
Still have 10 days left on this playtest, but my feelings on this racket have remained consistent throughout and I'd don't see anything changing that. So might as well get this ball rolling. Of course I'll update my review if need be.
Racquet received: Head MXG 3
String and tension used for test: Pro’s Pro Hexaspin Twist poly mains and Vendetta poly crosses at 50 lbs.
Tennis experience/background: Played a bit as a kid and a year in high school, then returned to the game in my 30’s. A bit of a gear freak in all of my hobbies. Currently play rec and USTA matches at the 4.0-4.5 level.
Describe your playing style: From style of play to stroke mechanics, think of a vastly inferior David Ferrer, a 4.0 David Ferrer if you will. So a grinding, topspin heavy baseline game. Also play a lot of dubs, where I play more like an adapted singles player. I’m aggressive at net, but don’t frequently serve and volley or try to rush the net on returns.
Current racquet/string setups: Yonex Duel G 97 310 with various polys.
How many hours did you play with the racquet? 12
Comments on racquet performance
-Groundstrokes: To start I’ll say this racket is a little outside of my usual spec range. I tend to gravitate towards rackets in the 11.6 oz realm that are more flexible, headlight, and thinner beamed. Though I have flirted with stiffer low 11 oz tweeners in the past. Just looking at the racket, it reminded me of the various game improvement rackets with “groundbreaking new technologies”, that were so prevalent in the late 90’s, which my dad seemed to bring home every month. The string pattern on this racket is wide open, thanks to a large head shape (looks bigger than 100 sq in) and elongated mains. The spacing is reminiscent of a spin effect racket like a Wilson Steam 99S or Prince Tour 100T ESP. On groundstrokes, the first thing that jumped out at me was the easy depth I was getting with spin, power, and a high launch angle. I had to alter my swing path a bit to adjust to the higher launch angle and power. It swung easily, pocketed the ball nicely, and had decent enough plow through and a fairly healthy swingweight for its low static weight. It also played softer than its high RA rating would suggest, though you could feel the stiffness creep in on off center shots, where it showed a little lack of stability and a noticeable drop off in power. But a ball cleanly struck in the sweetspot came off with big pop and spin. The free power came at a price though, for despite the great spin potential, I found myself hitting long more frequently than I’d like; the string bed was slightly erratic and sometimes balls would sail when I thought I had a clean shot. Directional control also wasn’t abundantly accurate, and I found it better to aim for bigger targets, dictating with spin, power, and depth, rather than placement and precision. I definitely felt more comfortable camped out on the baseline hitting big topspin, and didn’t feel as confident with my approach shots or when trying to flatten out a put-away. Slices were okay, better than I expected. I thought the high launch angle on topspin groundstrokes would also translate to super high floating slices. However slices were relatively solid, which can probably be attributed to some mass focused in the top of the hoop.
-Serves: It was really easy to get the MXG 3 moving on serves, where I found good pop on tap. It excelled at slice and spin serves, and worked well for pulling opponents out wide or trying to kick the ball up high. Although, like my groundstrokes, I found I needed to aim for bigger targets, as the ball came off my racket higher than normal and placement was a little spotty. Still, this should be an easy serving racket for many rec players.
-Volleys: The stiffness and power of this racket gave nice punch on volleys, and I found it fairly quick and maneuverable despite not being very headlight; I really liked the feel of this up at net. However, I did definitely notice some instability when I wasn’t able to make a crisp volley, so in that aspect it wasn’t always forgiving at net. I guess that’s too be expected from a low 11 oz racket with what looks like an OS head. The abundant power and lack of stability also didn’t lend itself to great touch volleys either. However for punching clean winners in the center of the string bed and hitting hard overheads, this racket excelled.
-Serve returns: I had to be more conservative on my returns, otherwise I found myself hitting long. Trying to step in and take a solid cut led to inconsistent results. I found I needed to roll my returns into play with a focus on topspin. I also found it difficult to control my chip/block returns, as they often got away from me. The maneuverability was nice though, and the free power did offer some forgiveness when stretched out trying to get a racket on a well struck serve.
General reaction/comments on overall performance: This was a fun playtest, as it’s enjoyable rallying with such an undemanding stick that gives you immediate access to power and spin. Though when it comes to actual match play and point construction, it wasn’t a love connection with the MXG given its focus more on power and less on control. Initially I thought I might be comparing the MXG 3 more to the likes of a Yonex Ai100, but the Ai100 is more control oriented and hits a much flatter ball. Really this racket reminded me most of the Wilson Steam 99S. They both offer free power and a higher launch angle with abundant spin, in a low 11 oz racket that is more evenly balanced than my usual sticks. The Steam has a higher swingweight and is more stable, while the MXG 3 more maneuverable and less demanding. And I think the Steam offers more spin, while the MXG 3 gets the nod in the power department. For many rec players who just want an undemanding racket that’s easy to pick up and play with, I can certainly see the MXG 3 being a suitable option. For players with fuller swings and faster racket head speeds, a full bed of lower powered poly would be in order to help tame the beast. I initially strung the racket with poly mains and synthetic gut crosses, but immediately cut it out because balls were just sailing.
Someone else mentioned that this racket feels like a Prince ported frame, and I can understand that comparison. The MXG’s elongated mains, rubber throat piece, and freely moving strings give a certain type of feel, and certainly make it more arm friendly and dampened than expected from the specs. It’s a very interesting offering from Head, with some nice attributes, but it just didn’t quite fit the bill for me. Maybe there will be an MXG 1? That would probably be more in my wheelhouse.
Racquet received: Head MXG 3
String and tension used for test: Pro’s Pro Hexaspin Twist poly mains and Vendetta poly crosses at 50 lbs.
Tennis experience/background: Played a bit as a kid and a year in high school, then returned to the game in my 30’s. A bit of a gear freak in all of my hobbies. Currently play rec and USTA matches at the 4.0-4.5 level.
Describe your playing style: From style of play to stroke mechanics, think of a vastly inferior David Ferrer, a 4.0 David Ferrer if you will. So a grinding, topspin heavy baseline game. Also play a lot of dubs, where I play more like an adapted singles player. I’m aggressive at net, but don’t frequently serve and volley or try to rush the net on returns.
Current racquet/string setups: Yonex Duel G 97 310 with various polys.
How many hours did you play with the racquet? 12
Comments on racquet performance
-Groundstrokes: To start I’ll say this racket is a little outside of my usual spec range. I tend to gravitate towards rackets in the 11.6 oz realm that are more flexible, headlight, and thinner beamed. Though I have flirted with stiffer low 11 oz tweeners in the past. Just looking at the racket, it reminded me of the various game improvement rackets with “groundbreaking new technologies”, that were so prevalent in the late 90’s, which my dad seemed to bring home every month. The string pattern on this racket is wide open, thanks to a large head shape (looks bigger than 100 sq in) and elongated mains. The spacing is reminiscent of a spin effect racket like a Wilson Steam 99S or Prince Tour 100T ESP. On groundstrokes, the first thing that jumped out at me was the easy depth I was getting with spin, power, and a high launch angle. I had to alter my swing path a bit to adjust to the higher launch angle and power. It swung easily, pocketed the ball nicely, and had decent enough plow through and a fairly healthy swingweight for its low static weight. It also played softer than its high RA rating would suggest, though you could feel the stiffness creep in on off center shots, where it showed a little lack of stability and a noticeable drop off in power. But a ball cleanly struck in the sweetspot came off with big pop and spin. The free power came at a price though, for despite the great spin potential, I found myself hitting long more frequently than I’d like; the string bed was slightly erratic and sometimes balls would sail when I thought I had a clean shot. Directional control also wasn’t abundantly accurate, and I found it better to aim for bigger targets, dictating with spin, power, and depth, rather than placement and precision. I definitely felt more comfortable camped out on the baseline hitting big topspin, and didn’t feel as confident with my approach shots or when trying to flatten out a put-away. Slices were okay, better than I expected. I thought the high launch angle on topspin groundstrokes would also translate to super high floating slices. However slices were relatively solid, which can probably be attributed to some mass focused in the top of the hoop.
-Serves: It was really easy to get the MXG 3 moving on serves, where I found good pop on tap. It excelled at slice and spin serves, and worked well for pulling opponents out wide or trying to kick the ball up high. Although, like my groundstrokes, I found I needed to aim for bigger targets, as the ball came off my racket higher than normal and placement was a little spotty. Still, this should be an easy serving racket for many rec players.
-Volleys: The stiffness and power of this racket gave nice punch on volleys, and I found it fairly quick and maneuverable despite not being very headlight; I really liked the feel of this up at net. However, I did definitely notice some instability when I wasn’t able to make a crisp volley, so in that aspect it wasn’t always forgiving at net. I guess that’s too be expected from a low 11 oz racket with what looks like an OS head. The abundant power and lack of stability also didn’t lend itself to great touch volleys either. However for punching clean winners in the center of the string bed and hitting hard overheads, this racket excelled.
-Serve returns: I had to be more conservative on my returns, otherwise I found myself hitting long. Trying to step in and take a solid cut led to inconsistent results. I found I needed to roll my returns into play with a focus on topspin. I also found it difficult to control my chip/block returns, as they often got away from me. The maneuverability was nice though, and the free power did offer some forgiveness when stretched out trying to get a racket on a well struck serve.
General reaction/comments on overall performance: This was a fun playtest, as it’s enjoyable rallying with such an undemanding stick that gives you immediate access to power and spin. Though when it comes to actual match play and point construction, it wasn’t a love connection with the MXG given its focus more on power and less on control. Initially I thought I might be comparing the MXG 3 more to the likes of a Yonex Ai100, but the Ai100 is more control oriented and hits a much flatter ball. Really this racket reminded me most of the Wilson Steam 99S. They both offer free power and a higher launch angle with abundant spin, in a low 11 oz racket that is more evenly balanced than my usual sticks. The Steam has a higher swingweight and is more stable, while the MXG 3 more maneuverable and less demanding. And I think the Steam offers more spin, while the MXG 3 gets the nod in the power department. For many rec players who just want an undemanding racket that’s easy to pick up and play with, I can certainly see the MXG 3 being a suitable option. For players with fuller swings and faster racket head speeds, a full bed of lower powered poly would be in order to help tame the beast. I initially strung the racket with poly mains and synthetic gut crosses, but immediately cut it out because balls were just sailing.
Someone else mentioned that this racket feels like a Prince ported frame, and I can understand that comparison. The MXG’s elongated mains, rubber throat piece, and freely moving strings give a certain type of feel, and certainly make it more arm friendly and dampened than expected from the specs. It’s a very interesting offering from Head, with some nice attributes, but it just didn’t quite fit the bill for me. Maybe there will be an MXG 1? That would probably be more in my wheelhouse.
skydog
Professional
Racquet Recieved:
Head MxG 5
String and tension used for test:
Mains: Ashaway Kevlar 16g @ 60 lbs.
Crosses: Ashaway Monogut ZX 16g @ 53 lbs.
Tennis Experience/Background:
I have only been playing seriously for the past three plus years. Most of my tennis is being played in group drills 3 to 5 times a week which are primarily doubles based. I am not rated, but play in 3.5 to 4.0 level drills.
Describe your playing style:
Primarily a doubles player with an attacking style, always moving forward. I spend more time at net than I do at the baseline.
Current Racquet/String setups:
Modified Wilson Blade 104 (2015) 380g, 10 pts Head Light.
Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains @ 57 lbs, Ashaway Monogut ZX 16g crosses @ 50 lbs.
I am currently transitioning from the Blade 104 into:
Modified Prince Tour 98 ESP 380g, 10 pts Head Light
Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains @ 57 lbs, Ashaway Monogut ZX 16g crosses @ 50 lbs.
How many hours did you play with the racquet:
Unmodified Stock configuration: 15 hours
Modified configuration: 3 hours
Total hours: 18 hours
Comments on racquet performance:
-Ground Strokes: I was quite surprised how well I hit ground strokes with the MxG 5. It was relatively easy to generate good depth, spin, and pace. Normally, when I hit with a racquet as light as the MxG 5 my timing is off due to my preference for much heavier racquets, but I was able to transition into the MxG 5 relatively quickly without being too far out in front with my swing. While the racquet felt good in my hands on ground strokes, there was a noticeable lack of plow through when playing against heavier hitters. Stability was good, but against heavier hitters the racquet tended to flutter a bit more than I am used to. The MxG 5's highlights were top spin ground strokes from either side. It was almost automatic to hit hit good,deep, top spin groundies with this racquet with my forehand while my one hand backhand was nearly automatic. I would have preferred some more weight for the backhand groundies, but it did not detract too much from my normal set up. Slice/underspin groundies were not nearly as automatic as the top spin shots. The ball tended to float and launch a bit higher than my normal setups when using underspin which set up my opponent quite nicely on several occasions. I could hit some nice low slice shots with this racquet, but the margin of error from low to floating high was minimal which resulted in more higher slices than normal. Top spin groundies were probably my favorite shot while using the MxG 5.
-Serves: The MxG 5 is a decent serving racquet out of the box. I like an extended length racquet for serving and the MxG 5 did not disappoint. Good solid flat serves with decent pace and control. My kick serve was working well with the open pattern producing a good amount of spin. While the serving aspects of the racquet were good, I did feel as though I was leaving some pace on the table. Without a radar gun for direct measurement I can not quantify how much I was missing if any at all, but the ball just did not seem to be traveling as fast and I also found a few more balls being returned to me during serving drills against the same group of players I normally play against. Again, the MxG 5 is a good serving racquet, it just seemed to be missing a little bit of speed at its stock spec.
-Volleys: I was a little worried about the volleys when I was reading the specs with the light weight and near even balance, but the MxG performed better than expected. I was quite surprised how maneuverable the extended length racquet was up at net and was able to adjust to it fairly rapidly. When I transitioned to my Blade 104 there was a lengthy period of adjustment with volleys, but with that experience in hand, I was hitting solid volleys with the MxG 5 right away. As long as the ball was above the net, I was hitting solid deep volleys. Once the ball got below net level, I started having some issues with my touch volleys and depth/height control. Kind of like my slice groundies, I had a hard time keeping the ball low and controlling the depth. I would on occasion hit a nice touch volley or half volley, but it was the exception more than the rule. I did, however, hit some killer drop volleys with the MxG 5. As long as the ball was above the net, again, I could hit some nasty spinning drop volleys. The racquet performed well on reaction volleys and was more maneuverable than I was expecting. I had no issues getting the racquet into position on quick reaction shots, and as long as the ball was above the net, was able to block the ball back with decent control. Against harder hitters, there were some stability issues. The racquet would flutter a bit on off center hits.
-Serve Returns: Service returns were probably my least favorite stroke to hit with the MxG 5. I had a difficult time controlling my service returns off both wings and there was some definite instability when facing harder hitters. For whatever reason, I just could not get in the groove with my service returns. The lack of plow through really showed up in this phase of the play test. On slower serves and second serves it was less of an issue, but harder/flatter first serves left me begging for the return to stay in more often than normal. Even when just blocking a ball back, I was having depth control issues. It was here where I missed the weight the most.
General reaction / comments on overall performance:
Out of the box, the look and feel of the MxG 5 is quite stunning. The paint and finish are perfect and not overily flashy. The silver magnesium bridge stands out on first glance, but once the racquet is strung up and you start playing it does not stand out as much and is not a distraction. While it is a light racquet, it was not noticibly light in my hand and did not seem to impact my swing speed as much as other racquets have in the past.
I did have a couple of minor issues when stringing MxG 5, but nothing that could not be worked out. Surprisingly, when stringing the crosses I found it hard to feed the string through the grommets without a little more effort than normal. It felt as though there was some kind of restriction resisting the string entering the grommet. Not a major deal, but it slowed the process down a bit. Additionally, the lower two grommet strips unseated themselves when stringing the outer mains. Holding the grommet in place while stringing solved the issue, but slowed the process down a bit.
The racquet was fairly comfortable in stock configuration. It's flex rating is way higher than I normally play with so I was a bit concearned, but it did not feel as stiff as it's RDC rating. The longer mains may play into this, but it definitely felt flexier that its 68 rating, it felt more in the low to mid 60's range. I was also quite pleased with its sweet spot size. It has a large and forgiving sweet spot and I never really felt any great power fall off unless I framed a ball.
Full power top spin strokes are where the MxG 5 shined. Top spin groundies and serves are its forte and I hit those as well as with any racquet I have played. Underspin and touch shots left me wanting more weight and control. In addition to the issues mentioned above, I also had a hard time controlling the depth of my top spin lob. I was either launching the ball beyond the baseline or leaving it short in the "get your net partner killed zone". I could never get the shot dialed in at stock weight.
In stock form, the MxG 5 is a solid racquet. If you are more of a baseliner style player, the MxG 5 could work for you right off the stringer with no modifications. It's is solid, comfortable, forgiving, and can generate some good top spin. With some modifications, I could play with this racquet on a regular basis without feeling as though it was weak in any area. It will be interesting to see how Head progresses with this line of racquets.
The modifications:
Prior to my last two sessions, I decided to modify the MxG 5 up to my specs to see if I could find some performance gains. I added a leather grip, lead at 3&9 for some stability, lead at 12, and a lot of BluTack in the tubes to get it to my desired 380 grams and 10 pts head light.
What a difference the weight makes. Immediate gains in plow through and stability across the whole spectrum of shots. More importantly, most of the lost control on touch shots was regained. Sliced groundies were easier to keep low, touch volleys and half volleys had easier height and depth control, top spin lobs depth control returned, service returns were signifantly improved, and that extra boost on my serves was back. Directional control was still not as good as on my racquets of choice, but it was close enough that I could use the modified MxG 5 as a replacement for any of my racquets without giving up too much.
In my opinion, Head has produced a racquet that can be used as a solid platform racquet as well as a good transition racquet for juniors. The MxG 5 is playable in its stock form, particularly at lower ball speeds, but really opens up once it is modified with additional weight.
Head MxG 5
String and tension used for test:
Mains: Ashaway Kevlar 16g @ 60 lbs.
Crosses: Ashaway Monogut ZX 16g @ 53 lbs.
Tennis Experience/Background:
I have only been playing seriously for the past three plus years. Most of my tennis is being played in group drills 3 to 5 times a week which are primarily doubles based. I am not rated, but play in 3.5 to 4.0 level drills.
Describe your playing style:
Primarily a doubles player with an attacking style, always moving forward. I spend more time at net than I do at the baseline.
Current Racquet/String setups:
Modified Wilson Blade 104 (2015) 380g, 10 pts Head Light.
Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains @ 57 lbs, Ashaway Monogut ZX 16g crosses @ 50 lbs.
I am currently transitioning from the Blade 104 into:
Modified Prince Tour 98 ESP 380g, 10 pts Head Light
Ashaway Kevlar 16g mains @ 57 lbs, Ashaway Monogut ZX 16g crosses @ 50 lbs.
How many hours did you play with the racquet:
Unmodified Stock configuration: 15 hours
Modified configuration: 3 hours
Total hours: 18 hours
Comments on racquet performance:
-Ground Strokes: I was quite surprised how well I hit ground strokes with the MxG 5. It was relatively easy to generate good depth, spin, and pace. Normally, when I hit with a racquet as light as the MxG 5 my timing is off due to my preference for much heavier racquets, but I was able to transition into the MxG 5 relatively quickly without being too far out in front with my swing. While the racquet felt good in my hands on ground strokes, there was a noticeable lack of plow through when playing against heavier hitters. Stability was good, but against heavier hitters the racquet tended to flutter a bit more than I am used to. The MxG 5's highlights were top spin ground strokes from either side. It was almost automatic to hit hit good,deep, top spin groundies with this racquet with my forehand while my one hand backhand was nearly automatic. I would have preferred some more weight for the backhand groundies, but it did not detract too much from my normal set up. Slice/underspin groundies were not nearly as automatic as the top spin shots. The ball tended to float and launch a bit higher than my normal setups when using underspin which set up my opponent quite nicely on several occasions. I could hit some nice low slice shots with this racquet, but the margin of error from low to floating high was minimal which resulted in more higher slices than normal. Top spin groundies were probably my favorite shot while using the MxG 5.
-Serves: The MxG 5 is a decent serving racquet out of the box. I like an extended length racquet for serving and the MxG 5 did not disappoint. Good solid flat serves with decent pace and control. My kick serve was working well with the open pattern producing a good amount of spin. While the serving aspects of the racquet were good, I did feel as though I was leaving some pace on the table. Without a radar gun for direct measurement I can not quantify how much I was missing if any at all, but the ball just did not seem to be traveling as fast and I also found a few more balls being returned to me during serving drills against the same group of players I normally play against. Again, the MxG 5 is a good serving racquet, it just seemed to be missing a little bit of speed at its stock spec.
-Volleys: I was a little worried about the volleys when I was reading the specs with the light weight and near even balance, but the MxG performed better than expected. I was quite surprised how maneuverable the extended length racquet was up at net and was able to adjust to it fairly rapidly. When I transitioned to my Blade 104 there was a lengthy period of adjustment with volleys, but with that experience in hand, I was hitting solid volleys with the MxG 5 right away. As long as the ball was above the net, I was hitting solid deep volleys. Once the ball got below net level, I started having some issues with my touch volleys and depth/height control. Kind of like my slice groundies, I had a hard time keeping the ball low and controlling the depth. I would on occasion hit a nice touch volley or half volley, but it was the exception more than the rule. I did, however, hit some killer drop volleys with the MxG 5. As long as the ball was above the net, again, I could hit some nasty spinning drop volleys. The racquet performed well on reaction volleys and was more maneuverable than I was expecting. I had no issues getting the racquet into position on quick reaction shots, and as long as the ball was above the net, was able to block the ball back with decent control. Against harder hitters, there were some stability issues. The racquet would flutter a bit on off center hits.
-Serve Returns: Service returns were probably my least favorite stroke to hit with the MxG 5. I had a difficult time controlling my service returns off both wings and there was some definite instability when facing harder hitters. For whatever reason, I just could not get in the groove with my service returns. The lack of plow through really showed up in this phase of the play test. On slower serves and second serves it was less of an issue, but harder/flatter first serves left me begging for the return to stay in more often than normal. Even when just blocking a ball back, I was having depth control issues. It was here where I missed the weight the most.
General reaction / comments on overall performance:
Out of the box, the look and feel of the MxG 5 is quite stunning. The paint and finish are perfect and not overily flashy. The silver magnesium bridge stands out on first glance, but once the racquet is strung up and you start playing it does not stand out as much and is not a distraction. While it is a light racquet, it was not noticibly light in my hand and did not seem to impact my swing speed as much as other racquets have in the past.
I did have a couple of minor issues when stringing MxG 5, but nothing that could not be worked out. Surprisingly, when stringing the crosses I found it hard to feed the string through the grommets without a little more effort than normal. It felt as though there was some kind of restriction resisting the string entering the grommet. Not a major deal, but it slowed the process down a bit. Additionally, the lower two grommet strips unseated themselves when stringing the outer mains. Holding the grommet in place while stringing solved the issue, but slowed the process down a bit.
The racquet was fairly comfortable in stock configuration. It's flex rating is way higher than I normally play with so I was a bit concearned, but it did not feel as stiff as it's RDC rating. The longer mains may play into this, but it definitely felt flexier that its 68 rating, it felt more in the low to mid 60's range. I was also quite pleased with its sweet spot size. It has a large and forgiving sweet spot and I never really felt any great power fall off unless I framed a ball.
Full power top spin strokes are where the MxG 5 shined. Top spin groundies and serves are its forte and I hit those as well as with any racquet I have played. Underspin and touch shots left me wanting more weight and control. In addition to the issues mentioned above, I also had a hard time controlling the depth of my top spin lob. I was either launching the ball beyond the baseline or leaving it short in the "get your net partner killed zone". I could never get the shot dialed in at stock weight.
In stock form, the MxG 5 is a solid racquet. If you are more of a baseliner style player, the MxG 5 could work for you right off the stringer with no modifications. It's is solid, comfortable, forgiving, and can generate some good top spin. With some modifications, I could play with this racquet on a regular basis without feeling as though it was weak in any area. It will be interesting to see how Head progresses with this line of racquets.
The modifications:
Prior to my last two sessions, I decided to modify the MxG 5 up to my specs to see if I could find some performance gains. I added a leather grip, lead at 3&9 for some stability, lead at 12, and a lot of BluTack in the tubes to get it to my desired 380 grams and 10 pts head light.
What a difference the weight makes. Immediate gains in plow through and stability across the whole spectrum of shots. More importantly, most of the lost control on touch shots was regained. Sliced groundies were easier to keep low, touch volleys and half volleys had easier height and depth control, top spin lobs depth control returned, service returns were signifantly improved, and that extra boost on my serves was back. Directional control was still not as good as on my racquets of choice, but it was close enough that I could use the modified MxG 5 as a replacement for any of my racquets without giving up too much.
In my opinion, Head has produced a racquet that can be used as a solid platform racquet as well as a good transition racquet for juniors. The MxG 5 is playable in its stock form, particularly at lower ball speeds, but really opens up once it is modified with additional weight.
therecanbeonlyone
Semi-Pro
Racquet Received: Head MxG3 in a 4-1/4" grip size.
String and tension used for test: Ashaway Kevlar 16 gauge at 62 in mains with Ashaway Zyex 16 gauge in the crosses (not prestretched) at 58. Strung on a lockout machine with crazy slow pulls on the crosses. I added two overgrips to build up the grip size a bit. I don't use a dampener.
Tennis experience/background: Played a ton as a junior, took a decade off completely and have been back playing for about 7 years now. A computer rated 4.0.
Describe your playing style (i.e. serve & volley): 6'3" lefty all court player. I like to control the point with my forehand and look to finish moving forward most of the time. I use a one-handed backhand about 40% drive, 60% slice. I play singles and doubles just about equally, but played a little bit more singles during this playtest.
Current racquet/string setups: I've been using the Wilson Pro Staff 6.1 25th Anniversary, which is the 18x20 pattern, strung with Kevlar/Zyex at 57/55 with no prestretch and slow pulls, or sometimes 60/40-45 with thorough manually prestretch on both strings.
How many hours did you play with the racquet? 15 hours, slightly skewed towards singles. This includes hitting sessions, practice sets, and USTA league matches.
Comments on racquet performance: This is an interesting racquet. It certainly is powerful and spin friendly, but I don't think it goes too far on either of those characteristics. The first time out, it was very powerful and would launch the ball if I was a little late. Some of that is attributed to the more open pattern than I am used to. After that first session, though, I settled in and did not really have problems with the power. Though a little light weight for what I am used to, it still felt solid and uniform in the string bed.
-Groundstrokes: You get pretty good shape on the ball from the baseline with the large head and open pattern. It doesn't feel as open as the Babolat Pure Areo, but it trends that direction. By this, I mean you can achieve comfortable net clearance and get the ball down inside the baseline. I felt like I had to get the timing down on groundstrokes in order to really use the power/spin combination. I tended to get passive with my swing if I wasn't perfectly set up. Stab slices had enough juice on them to get back deep, which I don't always have with tighter patterned racquets. One thing my usual hitting partner commented on pretty much immediately, was that my groundstrokes (both topspin and slice) had more lateral movement on them than normal, meaning they got into his hip or tailed away from him more than expected. Anytime your shots can mess up someone's spacing, that is a plus.
-Serves: I got a good amount of kick and slice out of this racquet. Once again, it is lighter than I am used to, but along with that it has a less headlight balance too, which works for me on the serve. I've reworked my serve during the past 2-3 months, but liked the response with the MxG3, and was able to continue making progress. I got lots of free points, and in doubles was able to induce easy volleys for my partner. One particular doubles match, I felt like I served really well, keeping the opponents off balance with the spin and power (until the dreaded double fault in the match tiebreaker, only my 2nd of the match, which is totally on me). Afterward, one of my opponents who I didn't previously know texted to see if we could play a tournament together, saying that he would love to poach off of those serves.
-Volleys: Surprisingly, I felt like I volleyed fine with this racquet. I just wasn't sure about the weight and balance and how that would affect volleys. There is definitely a difference between my regular racquet and the MxG3 on volleys when in a defensive position trying to absorb pace, but i think it still surpassed my expectations. I'm not the most adept at touch and drop volleys, so can't really comment there. Typically, I put it back deep and try to induce an easier put-away if I can. For those purposes, the MxG3 performed well. It is more solid through the hoop than I would have thought and though light still holds up reasonably well to hard passing shots.
-Serve returns: I didn't feel like I could take big rips at returns due to the power this frame has. However, I was able to concentrate on being solid and the racquet would do the work for me and return the ball deep or low as needed. One 7.5 combo doubles match I missed my first return of the day during the 9th game, catching it early and unfortunately one-hopping it into the head of one of my teammates on the bench for the next court over. Pretty funny, but as bad as that one was, it made me realize that up to that point my return was really nice. I slice a lot of my backhand returns and the extra power helps there. Due to the lighter weight, I was able to come over them pretty well at times too though.
General reaction/comments on overall performance: The MxG3 did everything reasonably well, but I'm not sure it shined on anything for me and my game either. Compared to my normal set-up, I got more shape on the ball, but it didn't drive through the court as much as I would like. Serves were probably the best stroke comparatively. Everything else got a passing grade, but not exceptional. Towards the end of the playtest, I added some weight toward the top of the handle, trying not to mess up the balance too much. I don't think that improved anything though. My feeling is that this racquet wants to be polarized, and that makes sense with the spin potential the frame has.
There is definitely a place for this racquet in the right hands. I'm interested in letting my parents try it out, as I think I could be a good option for a different style game. One note on comfort: this is a stiff racquet at 72 RA (reportedly), that didn't feel that stiff. The size of the string bed and extra length on the main strings I think served to soften up the feel. It isn't one I would recommend for someone with tender joints, but don't be scared away by the RA otherwise.
Thanks, Head and TW. I'll pass this racquet around and do some ground roots advertising for both of you!
String and tension used for test: Ashaway Kevlar 16 gauge at 62 in mains with Ashaway Zyex 16 gauge in the crosses (not prestretched) at 58. Strung on a lockout machine with crazy slow pulls on the crosses. I added two overgrips to build up the grip size a bit. I don't use a dampener.
Tennis experience/background: Played a ton as a junior, took a decade off completely and have been back playing for about 7 years now. A computer rated 4.0.
Describe your playing style (i.e. serve & volley): 6'3" lefty all court player. I like to control the point with my forehand and look to finish moving forward most of the time. I use a one-handed backhand about 40% drive, 60% slice. I play singles and doubles just about equally, but played a little bit more singles during this playtest.
Current racquet/string setups: I've been using the Wilson Pro Staff 6.1 25th Anniversary, which is the 18x20 pattern, strung with Kevlar/Zyex at 57/55 with no prestretch and slow pulls, or sometimes 60/40-45 with thorough manually prestretch on both strings.
How many hours did you play with the racquet? 15 hours, slightly skewed towards singles. This includes hitting sessions, practice sets, and USTA league matches.
Comments on racquet performance: This is an interesting racquet. It certainly is powerful and spin friendly, but I don't think it goes too far on either of those characteristics. The first time out, it was very powerful and would launch the ball if I was a little late. Some of that is attributed to the more open pattern than I am used to. After that first session, though, I settled in and did not really have problems with the power. Though a little light weight for what I am used to, it still felt solid and uniform in the string bed.
-Groundstrokes: You get pretty good shape on the ball from the baseline with the large head and open pattern. It doesn't feel as open as the Babolat Pure Areo, but it trends that direction. By this, I mean you can achieve comfortable net clearance and get the ball down inside the baseline. I felt like I had to get the timing down on groundstrokes in order to really use the power/spin combination. I tended to get passive with my swing if I wasn't perfectly set up. Stab slices had enough juice on them to get back deep, which I don't always have with tighter patterned racquets. One thing my usual hitting partner commented on pretty much immediately, was that my groundstrokes (both topspin and slice) had more lateral movement on them than normal, meaning they got into his hip or tailed away from him more than expected. Anytime your shots can mess up someone's spacing, that is a plus.
-Serves: I got a good amount of kick and slice out of this racquet. Once again, it is lighter than I am used to, but along with that it has a less headlight balance too, which works for me on the serve. I've reworked my serve during the past 2-3 months, but liked the response with the MxG3, and was able to continue making progress. I got lots of free points, and in doubles was able to induce easy volleys for my partner. One particular doubles match, I felt like I served really well, keeping the opponents off balance with the spin and power (until the dreaded double fault in the match tiebreaker, only my 2nd of the match, which is totally on me). Afterward, one of my opponents who I didn't previously know texted to see if we could play a tournament together, saying that he would love to poach off of those serves.
-Volleys: Surprisingly, I felt like I volleyed fine with this racquet. I just wasn't sure about the weight and balance and how that would affect volleys. There is definitely a difference between my regular racquet and the MxG3 on volleys when in a defensive position trying to absorb pace, but i think it still surpassed my expectations. I'm not the most adept at touch and drop volleys, so can't really comment there. Typically, I put it back deep and try to induce an easier put-away if I can. For those purposes, the MxG3 performed well. It is more solid through the hoop than I would have thought and though light still holds up reasonably well to hard passing shots.
-Serve returns: I didn't feel like I could take big rips at returns due to the power this frame has. However, I was able to concentrate on being solid and the racquet would do the work for me and return the ball deep or low as needed. One 7.5 combo doubles match I missed my first return of the day during the 9th game, catching it early and unfortunately one-hopping it into the head of one of my teammates on the bench for the next court over. Pretty funny, but as bad as that one was, it made me realize that up to that point my return was really nice. I slice a lot of my backhand returns and the extra power helps there. Due to the lighter weight, I was able to come over them pretty well at times too though.
General reaction/comments on overall performance: The MxG3 did everything reasonably well, but I'm not sure it shined on anything for me and my game either. Compared to my normal set-up, I got more shape on the ball, but it didn't drive through the court as much as I would like. Serves were probably the best stroke comparatively. Everything else got a passing grade, but not exceptional. Towards the end of the playtest, I added some weight toward the top of the handle, trying not to mess up the balance too much. I don't think that improved anything though. My feeling is that this racquet wants to be polarized, and that makes sense with the spin potential the frame has.
There is definitely a place for this racquet in the right hands. I'm interested in letting my parents try it out, as I think I could be a good option for a different style game. One note on comfort: this is a stiff racquet at 72 RA (reportedly), that didn't feel that stiff. The size of the string bed and extra length on the main strings I think served to soften up the feel. It isn't one I would recommend for someone with tender joints, but don't be scared away by the RA otherwise.
Thanks, Head and TW. I'll pass this racquet around and do some ground roots advertising for both of you!
M Pillai
Semi-Pro
Here is my review of the Head MXG5.
It took me a while to complete this play test because of the big difference in specs of MXG5 to my regular ones.
Thanks a lot Head and TW for this exciting opportunity.
Racquet Received: Head MXG5
String and tension used for test: Prince Tour XC 16 @ 54lbs
Tennis experience/background:
Late boomer with 10+ years playing tennis at different levels. Currently plays mostly recreational singles tennis at 4.5. Also enjoys social doubles and singles/doubles strategic discussions. Also a trusted “free” stringer for buddies and usual go to person for the tennis strings/accessory/equipment related questions for the folks at the club.
Describe your playing style (i.e. serve & volley):
Strategic counter puncher. Enjoys and uses aggressive non-traditional strategies to bring opponents out of position.
Current racquet/string setups:
Yonex MP Tour 1 mid. Prince Tour XC 16 @ 54lb mains & 50lb crosses
How many hours did you play with the racquet?
14hrs
Comments on racquet performance:
-Groundstrokes:
The first thing to notice is its light weight. At 10.5oz strung weight, this racket is extremely easy on hands. But I would have to agree that if you are already used to 12+ oz rackets, the swing mechanics are not the same, and you may feel out of your zone. That being said, this is not a regular “tweaner racket” which dominates the below 10oz space. Some of the noticable things are.
a) spin. Really good spin on ground strokes. The 16x18 pattern is very open for a racket this size and it naturally gets a lot of spin. You can trust that the balls would land IN, and swing through.
b) power. If you are a flat hitter, there is easy power on the racket as well. Initially I thought the power was too much on this racket, and was hacking my shots without full followthrough or finish, but later I realize that, with the spin they would stay in even with a full finish.
c) stroke mechanics. I did not feel easy to adjust to the swing of MXG5. Coming from 12+ oz racquets, I felt the racket very filmsy on hands, and was found not “at home” during swinging initially. But I adjusted well towards the final hours of playtest. In general I do not feel confident swinging with this racket. But that is just me. I do think that the modern game is changing towards lower weight, heavy spin and easy swing. Anyone who learned to swing with and stick to such racquet characteristics would feel right at home.
-Serves:
Serves came in easy. Even with the added power than my usual rackets, they stayed well in, even the flat serves. Flat serves had good easy power, though I was starting to feel a bit of it on my arm, and I think I was probably arming the serves a bit more than usual. The kickers were having good height on the ball, but my opponents said it was not as heavy as my usual kickers. In general extremely easy to serve with power. Again the noticable difference is how you feel it in the hands during serve motion (good or bad).
-Volleys:
Again. I felt a bit less-confident when started to volley with it, against some folks who hits very flat and powerful. Also the racket felt a bit stiff to absorb power. But after some adjustment period, I was hitting really penetrating baseline volleys. The racket is surprisingly stable enough for its weight. But I still did not get into a grove for taking the pace off enough on the drop volleys.
-Serve returns:
Again the first thing to feel is how easy it is to get to those wide serves with such a light racket. But on normal body serves, or serves closer to you, I had to change the way I swing. Normally I could get a solid return with a half-swing. But here I could not get them done consistently, and I had to change to more of “block returns”. That being said, the block returns do gets the job done very well. Especially since I was able to get the targets consistently with good power just by redirections. Again I could see someone coming in without any pre-judgements liking MXG5 better compared to old style heavier sticks.
General reaction/comments on overall performance:
I believe this is a really all round performance racquet for the modern age. The game is changing and this is a racquet towards the future. But anyone who plays currently with heavier/flexier old style racquets would feel, less confidence with this racquet in hand, at least initially. So please do a thourough playtest, without pre-judgement, and take your time. Initially I felt the racquet very filmsy and was not confident to swing with at all. But towards the end of the playtest, I learned that I just have to trust it, and adjusted pretty well. I still don’t see myself switching to such a new revolution raquet in the near future though. I am sure the old style folks would prefer a bit more weight on the racquet, and there is a lot of room for customization for such folks. I did not do any customization for the play-test, but may try some experiments in future.
It took me a while to complete this play test because of the big difference in specs of MXG5 to my regular ones.
Thanks a lot Head and TW for this exciting opportunity.
Racquet Received: Head MXG5
String and tension used for test: Prince Tour XC 16 @ 54lbs
Tennis experience/background:
Late boomer with 10+ years playing tennis at different levels. Currently plays mostly recreational singles tennis at 4.5. Also enjoys social doubles and singles/doubles strategic discussions. Also a trusted “free” stringer for buddies and usual go to person for the tennis strings/accessory/equipment related questions for the folks at the club.
Describe your playing style (i.e. serve & volley):
Strategic counter puncher. Enjoys and uses aggressive non-traditional strategies to bring opponents out of position.
Current racquet/string setups:
Yonex MP Tour 1 mid. Prince Tour XC 16 @ 54lb mains & 50lb crosses
How many hours did you play with the racquet?
14hrs
Comments on racquet performance:
-Groundstrokes:
The first thing to notice is its light weight. At 10.5oz strung weight, this racket is extremely easy on hands. But I would have to agree that if you are already used to 12+ oz rackets, the swing mechanics are not the same, and you may feel out of your zone. That being said, this is not a regular “tweaner racket” which dominates the below 10oz space. Some of the noticable things are.
a) spin. Really good spin on ground strokes. The 16x18 pattern is very open for a racket this size and it naturally gets a lot of spin. You can trust that the balls would land IN, and swing through.
b) power. If you are a flat hitter, there is easy power on the racket as well. Initially I thought the power was too much on this racket, and was hacking my shots without full followthrough or finish, but later I realize that, with the spin they would stay in even with a full finish.
c) stroke mechanics. I did not feel easy to adjust to the swing of MXG5. Coming from 12+ oz racquets, I felt the racket very filmsy on hands, and was found not “at home” during swinging initially. But I adjusted well towards the final hours of playtest. In general I do not feel confident swinging with this racket. But that is just me. I do think that the modern game is changing towards lower weight, heavy spin and easy swing. Anyone who learned to swing with and stick to such racquet characteristics would feel right at home.
-Serves:
Serves came in easy. Even with the added power than my usual rackets, they stayed well in, even the flat serves. Flat serves had good easy power, though I was starting to feel a bit of it on my arm, and I think I was probably arming the serves a bit more than usual. The kickers were having good height on the ball, but my opponents said it was not as heavy as my usual kickers. In general extremely easy to serve with power. Again the noticable difference is how you feel it in the hands during serve motion (good or bad).
-Volleys:
Again. I felt a bit less-confident when started to volley with it, against some folks who hits very flat and powerful. Also the racket felt a bit stiff to absorb power. But after some adjustment period, I was hitting really penetrating baseline volleys. The racket is surprisingly stable enough for its weight. But I still did not get into a grove for taking the pace off enough on the drop volleys.
-Serve returns:
Again the first thing to feel is how easy it is to get to those wide serves with such a light racket. But on normal body serves, or serves closer to you, I had to change the way I swing. Normally I could get a solid return with a half-swing. But here I could not get them done consistently, and I had to change to more of “block returns”. That being said, the block returns do gets the job done very well. Especially since I was able to get the targets consistently with good power just by redirections. Again I could see someone coming in without any pre-judgements liking MXG5 better compared to old style heavier sticks.
General reaction/comments on overall performance:
I believe this is a really all round performance racquet for the modern age. The game is changing and this is a racquet towards the future. But anyone who plays currently with heavier/flexier old style racquets would feel, less confidence with this racquet in hand, at least initially. So please do a thourough playtest, without pre-judgement, and take your time. Initially I felt the racquet very filmsy and was not confident to swing with at all. But towards the end of the playtest, I learned that I just have to trust it, and adjusted pretty well. I still don’t see myself switching to such a new revolution raquet in the near future though. I am sure the old style folks would prefer a bit more weight on the racquet, and there is a lot of room for customization for such folks. I did not do any customization for the play-test, but may try some experiments in future.
Last edited:
loosegroove
Hall of Fame
Only 4 reviews?
Doc Hollidae
Hall of Fame
Racquet Received: Head MxG3
String and tension used for test: Head Lynx @ 54/52 lbs. and Big Hitter Blue @ 54/52 lbs. The racket I received was 4 ¼, so I swapped out the stock grip for a Wilson Shockshield to increase the grip size and slapped on my normal TournaTac overgrip.
Tennis experience/background: Currently a self-rated 4.5, majority of playtesting occurred at the 5.0 level.
Describe your playing style (i.e. serve & volley): Serve and Volley for Doubles. Counterpuncher for Singles. 2 HBH is my best shot.
Current racquet/string setups: Graphene Speed Pro strung with Big Hitter Blue at 50/48 lbs.
How many hours did you play with the racquet? 10-12 hours, mostly singles. Had several hitting sessions, a few practice sets, and some dubs.
Initial Impressions: First impressions were the head size looked bigger than 100 sq in. That may have been due to the longer mains and the see through bridge. The racket is lighter than my preferred spec, but swung with a pretty good mass and the balance makes up for the weight a bit. The thickness of the frame reminds me of a Babalot. It has that lip that is awesome for getting shanks to drop in. The feel of the string bed is similar to the Ported feel of Prince rackets. It’s a very comfortable feel and makes the sweetspot feel bigger than normal. However, the sweetspot felt lower as opposed to a ported racket whose sweetspot feels slightly higher than center.
-Groundstrokes: This is a very easy racket to play with. Power and depth is plentiful. However, I didn’t feel like it hit a very heavy ball. Adding lead to the racket definitely made up for it. Despite the stiffness of the racket, it is very comfortable due to the stringbed. I think the longer mains technology does make a different in the feel of the string bed. Like I stated previously the feel is similar to the Ported feel. Spin was excellent. I had good shape on my topspin strokes and balls were bouncing up to my hitting partner's chest to shoulders. I wasn't the biggest of fan of hitting backhands slices with this racket, but I don't like hitting slice with any thick framed rackets really. Also, the racket does pocket the ball pretty well.
-Volleys: Volleying with this racket with pretty effortless. It was pretty easy to put the ball away with just a short punch. This racket picked up half volleys pretty well. The bigger sweetspot helps on those tough ones and gives a good response. I was able to get more depth than usual. The racket did flutter a little with hard struck balls, but it wasn't too frequent. The weight of the racket also makes it very maneuverable. Overheads were very fun with this racket. The power and maneuverability helped to snap it down put the ball away.
-Serves: I always enjoy hitting flat serves with lighter powerful rackets. Like with overheads, you can really accelerate into the ball and get some good racket head speed. My slice serves had more pace on them as usual, but not as much action. Which wasn't necessarily a bad thing. The same thing happened with kickers. More pace, less action. Once again not a bad thing.
- Returns: Returns were good with this racket. Once again the maneuverability allowed for me to whip through the ball and put plenty of spin on returns. I had a little trouble adjusting to the power, but I was able to figure it out after a few games. Flat returns flew on me more often than not, I think the open pattern is much more suited for topspin. Chip and slice returns had good depth, but they didn't bite and stay as low as with my Speed Pro. Blocking the ball back worked well against hard serves, but the racket did flutter a bit. Once I added a little weight though, it wasn't an issue.
Overall: The MXG3 was an interesting racket. I think the longer mains do make a difference in adding a little power and opening the sweetspot up a bit. It had a really open pattern, so hitting topspin was a blast. It doesn't hit quite as solidly as other similarly spec'd rackets. It just lacked that "thud" on contract. However, it was more comfortable than those rackets. The racket's throat looks pretty cool, but it does make the head size seem bigger. My hitting partner thought it was an oversized racket for sure until I put it up against my Speed Pro. I'm curious to see if Head continues with this technology with some of their more mainstream lines, and in heavier offerings. Overall it was a fun play test. Thank you TW and Head for the opportunity.
String and tension used for test: Head Lynx @ 54/52 lbs. and Big Hitter Blue @ 54/52 lbs. The racket I received was 4 ¼, so I swapped out the stock grip for a Wilson Shockshield to increase the grip size and slapped on my normal TournaTac overgrip.
Tennis experience/background: Currently a self-rated 4.5, majority of playtesting occurred at the 5.0 level.
Describe your playing style (i.e. serve & volley): Serve and Volley for Doubles. Counterpuncher for Singles. 2 HBH is my best shot.
Current racquet/string setups: Graphene Speed Pro strung with Big Hitter Blue at 50/48 lbs.
How many hours did you play with the racquet? 10-12 hours, mostly singles. Had several hitting sessions, a few practice sets, and some dubs.
Initial Impressions: First impressions were the head size looked bigger than 100 sq in. That may have been due to the longer mains and the see through bridge. The racket is lighter than my preferred spec, but swung with a pretty good mass and the balance makes up for the weight a bit. The thickness of the frame reminds me of a Babalot. It has that lip that is awesome for getting shanks to drop in. The feel of the string bed is similar to the Ported feel of Prince rackets. It’s a very comfortable feel and makes the sweetspot feel bigger than normal. However, the sweetspot felt lower as opposed to a ported racket whose sweetspot feels slightly higher than center.
-Groundstrokes: This is a very easy racket to play with. Power and depth is plentiful. However, I didn’t feel like it hit a very heavy ball. Adding lead to the racket definitely made up for it. Despite the stiffness of the racket, it is very comfortable due to the stringbed. I think the longer mains technology does make a different in the feel of the string bed. Like I stated previously the feel is similar to the Ported feel. Spin was excellent. I had good shape on my topspin strokes and balls were bouncing up to my hitting partner's chest to shoulders. I wasn't the biggest of fan of hitting backhands slices with this racket, but I don't like hitting slice with any thick framed rackets really. Also, the racket does pocket the ball pretty well.
-Volleys: Volleying with this racket with pretty effortless. It was pretty easy to put the ball away with just a short punch. This racket picked up half volleys pretty well. The bigger sweetspot helps on those tough ones and gives a good response. I was able to get more depth than usual. The racket did flutter a little with hard struck balls, but it wasn't too frequent. The weight of the racket also makes it very maneuverable. Overheads were very fun with this racket. The power and maneuverability helped to snap it down put the ball away.
-Serves: I always enjoy hitting flat serves with lighter powerful rackets. Like with overheads, you can really accelerate into the ball and get some good racket head speed. My slice serves had more pace on them as usual, but not as much action. Which wasn't necessarily a bad thing. The same thing happened with kickers. More pace, less action. Once again not a bad thing.
- Returns: Returns were good with this racket. Once again the maneuverability allowed for me to whip through the ball and put plenty of spin on returns. I had a little trouble adjusting to the power, but I was able to figure it out after a few games. Flat returns flew on me more often than not, I think the open pattern is much more suited for topspin. Chip and slice returns had good depth, but they didn't bite and stay as low as with my Speed Pro. Blocking the ball back worked well against hard serves, but the racket did flutter a bit. Once I added a little weight though, it wasn't an issue.
Overall: The MXG3 was an interesting racket. I think the longer mains do make a difference in adding a little power and opening the sweetspot up a bit. It had a really open pattern, so hitting topspin was a blast. It doesn't hit quite as solidly as other similarly spec'd rackets. It just lacked that "thud" on contract. However, it was more comfortable than those rackets. The racket's throat looks pretty cool, but it does make the head size seem bigger. My hitting partner thought it was an oversized racket for sure until I put it up against my Speed Pro. I'm curious to see if Head continues with this technology with some of their more mainstream lines, and in heavier offerings. Overall it was a fun play test. Thank you TW and Head for the opportunity.
loosegroove
Hall of Fame
That was a pretty small playtest, only 5 peeps? @Doc Hollidae, seems like we had somewhat similar impressions of the MXG3.
TennisHound
Legend
Light, uncontrollable, pretty pj
haqq777
Legend
Yep, just about sums it up for me. I'll agree with the first two out of three straightaway. I hit with it not too long ago and wasn't impressed to be honest. For the PJ part, quality yes, but the stick looks hideous to me in person. Looks are very subjective though so what looks ugly to me might look appealing to someone else.
haqq777
Legend
Yes, same here l, roughly. I prefer mine at 340-342g and with 6 points HL, ideally. More even balanced (less than 5 pts HL) at this static weight and I start feeling like I'm yielding a club. I even used 350g+ APDs with 9pts HL back when I was playing college tennis but that was when I was in my twenties and our coach wanted us to go heavy setup. Glad to have found a happy medium now. I still think that MXG3 will require proper, heavy customization for it to play like I want it to. It is barely a toy at stock weight for me.
M Pillai
Semi-Pro
I personally think it is not what "Head" is trying to do. Obviously i am also in the category of old style players, who expect that sturdiness and weight on the racket. But you should have already known what you were getting into just by looking at specs, even before getting into playtesting this racquet. I knew exactly what I was getting into, and wanted to try and see which direction the next gen is going. If I wanted to only test a 12+ oz racquet, I would not have tested this racquet. From the trend of new high-school/college players, we all know that lighter and stiffer rackets are getting attention at players-level. Obviously there is lot of room for customization by adding weight. But I don't think the real intent is to copy the specs and weight of great racquets of previous generation. Just my 2 cents...
Last edited:
skydog
Professional
For a light racquet, I found the MxG 5 quite controllable from the baseline. While I am a dedicated heavy racquet guy, this is probably the first light racquet I could swing stock without ruining my swing or have to slow it down. I enjoyed the play test, but will likely not be switching to the MxG 5.
haqq777
Legend
I am not a playtester for MXG here at TW, to be clear. I hit with it for an hour after borrowing it from a friend. Also, not questioning the trend of modern day racquet specs. As mentioned in my post above in bold, I was simply stating that for me, the MXG is more of a toy simply because I have used light weight racquets like this in the past many times. I end up beefing them up every single time. This would not have been an exception given how it was playing stock.
Last edited:
TennisHound
Legend
Other than the throat, I wonder how these racquets are different from the other average light racquets?
haqq777
Legend
I would recommend you video yourself hitting with your MxG 5. If you play with heavier setups (12oz plus) you would be surprised how your swing alters to adapt to the lighter stick.
Last edited:
skydog
Professional
I never felt out of sync. I am sure the body adjusts, but with other lighter play test racquets I was noticeably out of sync and had to consciously alter my swing. With the MxG 5, I never felt the need to consciously adjust my swing. The even balance may have something to do with that, as well, as I am normally hitting 10 points HL. Obviously, when I modified it up to my specs it felt better in my hands and performed more like I am accustomed to, but at stock weight it was still a racquet I could play with without feeling completely out of sync.
haqq777
Legend
So what you are basically saying here is that your normal swing you have with your 12oz + racquet remained the same with a barely 10.3oz racquet? Hard to come to terms for me, really. What is the swing weight, balance and static weight of your heavier racquet, if I may ask?
Last edited:
skydog
Professional
380 grams 10 points HL.
I am sure my swing was a bit different, but I did not have to conciously adapt. I was not way out in front like I normally am when play testing a lighter racquet. I definitely had issues with touch shots, but ground strokes were pretty good right out of the box.
