Wilson Ultra Tour (Monfils)

dgoran

Hall of Fame
I still have mine. I think it is a great frame if you want a soft, classic player. What I think happens is that people realize two things - you need to be playing tennis all the time to really maximize these frames, and the power is going to come from leading these up over 12 grams. I have a bag of classic frames and my personal favorite in terms of feel is the Head Austrian Radical OS.
100% agree I got 3 myself and yes unless I'm out there 2-3 times a week (increasingly hard with 5 and 2yr old lol ) it's hardy to use.
 

jdawg02

Rookie
Can you compare it with a blade 18x20; The new blades have become bulky with the added countervail and i am not a fan of the new feel....also they have increased their power. I felt more connected with 2015 blades.

What about spin potential ; 97sq head with 18x20 may be an issue for intermediate players.

I am also curious how it compares with another great stick the Burn FST 95....;

There is definitely more spin potential, comfort and feel in the Ultra Tour. I have never been a fan of the blade line except the 93 version due to its headlight balance. I have never used the Burn FST but I have a strong feeling this frame is much more plush and better directional control due to the 18x20 string pattern.

A great way to make an 18x20 work for you in the spin department is to sting with a thin poly on a constant pull electronic machine like a 1.20 gauge in the mid to high 40's in string tension and it'll enhance the pocketing, spring and will open up the string bed a little bit more.

I definitely recommend this Ultra Tour racquet. It is a great all around performer!
 
If you read the thread from the start, you'll see I was really excited. But upon seeing the specs are what they are, I was really disapointed. The original Ultra Tour Specs were pretty much my grail frame.

My grail would be:
-18x20
-foam filled
-sub 60ra
-thin beam
-leather grip (not a deal breaker it's so easy to change)
-27.5in (wishful thinking, but not a deal breaker, I switch from 27 to 27.5 without problem)

Customizable so when strung I can get to these specs:
-4 to 6 pt HL strung
-~340g strung
-~345SW strung

My Angells Tc97 are exactly that except they start at 67ra (probably 63 when grip and strings are added) and I'm at 350SW when strung with thin 18l gauge. Anything thicker SW jumps up to 360.

That's why I wanted the Tour to be sub 63. No way I can justify to myself to buy one. If I want I can just order a Tc97 at 27" instead of 27,5". However I can see why someone would buy the Ultra, the specs are quite good. The stiffness being only a problem for me, I'm sure plenty are gonna be pleased with it.

:)
Nice! I may be wrong but wasn't the Dunlop Hotmelt 200g a sub 60ra frame? I think the stiffness went up with the aerogels and may have went back down with the bio.

I have hit with the Ultra Tour and felt it was plush strung with an all poly. I have always thought Wilson racquets played harsh but this one didn't feel that way. However, I have only hit with it for a couple hours.

I do like your preferred specs.
 

Tommy Haas

Hall of Fame
I was a Dunlop MW 200G and HM 200G user and the HM was maybe 61 RA with the MW being sub 60. The HM was a tad under 12oz. It was an easier frame to use over the MW, but harder to get spin with because of the dense 18x20 pattern on a 95" head. The MW was easier because it was more flexible allowing the ball to stay on the strings longer to impart spin.

Someone commented earlier in the thread that the 300G felt similar to the new Ultra Tour. I hope that isn't the case because the HM 300G model with black rubberized paint and orange accents was a harsh feeling frame. It also lacked mass in the head and needed weight at 3 and 9 to have any pop.

I hope the Ultra Tour is nothing like the 300G and that it really does play like a PT57A with a deceiving 63 RA. My guess is that Wilson put the flex lower on the frame towards the throat where the Babolat RDC isn't directly measuring. The RDC measures the flex near the bottom of the hoop on standard length racquets.
 

jmacdaununder2

Hall of Fame
I was under the impression that retail racquets designed for advanced players - eg. Austrian Prestiges - were engineered to flex in the hoop by default - hence the whole Flexpoint saga lol; not sure about flex in the shaft? @ndawg?
 

dgoran

Hall of Fame
I was under the impression that retail racquets designed for advanced players - eg. Austrian Prestiges - were engineered to flex in the hoop by default - hence the whole Flexpoint saga lol; not sure about flex in the shaft? @ndawg?
Very few advanced players used flex point
 

macattack

Professional
been there, done that
One of the unique rites of passage when your home court is in the city. I have an odd affection for playing surrounded by concrete. My girlfriend's family belongs to a country club and as nice as the courts are, it just ain't the same.
 

jmacdaununder2

Hall of Fame
Very few advanced players used flex point
Yeah, I know no one much actually bothered with Flexpoint per se, hence the included 'lol' , but I was under the impression that for advanced players' racquets, the usual area of flex - if you're going to have an area, rather than relative uniformity, is the hoop, not the shaft. This understanding presumably led to the ill fated attempt by Head to make a marketing gimmick out of something that was already being engineered into frames anyway.
 

jmacdaununder2

Hall of Fame
It's much funnier when you do it off of a roof top CBD court; unfortunately I wasn't able to see the balls bounce (one stretch volley I couldn't quite reach - ball deflected off of the tip; one bounce smash) who knows what mayhem ensued below? I didn't hear any sirens...
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
I was a Dunlop MW 200G and HM 200G user and the HM was maybe 61 RA with the MW being sub 60. The HM was a tad under 12oz. It was an easier frame to use over the MW, but harder to get spin with because of the dense 18x20 pattern on a 95" head. The MW was easier because it was more flexible allowing the ball to stay on the strings longer to impart spin.

Someone commented earlier in the thread that the 300G felt similar to the new Ultra Tour. I hope that isn't the case because the HM 300G model with black rubberized paint and orange accents was a harsh feeling frame. It also lacked mass in the head and needed weight at 3 and 9 to have any pop.

I hope the Ultra Tour is nothing like the 300G and that it really does play like a PT57A with a deceiving 63 RA. My guess is that Wilson put the flex lower on the frame towards the throat where the Babolat RDC isn't directly measuring. The RDC measures the flex near the bottom of the hoop on standard length racquets.
I missed reading that someone compared the Ultra Tour to the 300G.
 
Last edited:

dgoran

Hall of Fame
I was a Dunlop MW 200G and HM 200G user and the HM was maybe 61 RA with the MW being sub 60. The HM was a tad under 12oz. It was an easier frame to use over the MW, but harder to get spin with because of the dense 18x20 pattern on a 95" head. The MW was easier because it was more flexible allowing the ball to stay on the strings longer to impart spin.

Someone commented earlier in the thread that the 300G felt similar to the new Ultra Tour. I hope that isn't the case because the HM 300G model with black rubberized paint and orange accents was a harsh feeling frame. It also lacked mass in the head and needed weight at 3 and 9 to have any pop.

I hope the Ultra Tour is nothing like the 300G and that it really does play like a PT57A with a deceiving 63 RA. My guess is that Wilson put the flex lower on the frame towards the throat where the Babolat RDC isn't directly measuring. The RDC measures the flex near the bottom of the hoop on standard length racquets.
Maybe I was skim reading but I thought he was referring to Dunlop bio 300 that has pt924 mold.
 

dgoran

Hall of Fame
I got a chance to hit with it on Friday. It is a great feeling racquet and a very generous forgiving feeling frame. Less bulky than the blade but I prefer my reissue 6.1 95 due to the plow thru and the amplifeel in the handle which makes the racquet play less stiff than its rating. The Ultra Tour reminds me of a mix of the Dunlop 300 G and the YouTek IG Radical in feel with a more headlight balance. It is a definitely a great platform for customization and a great speedy offering for someone who wants a lighter racquet.
300g is I think 67 flex and youtek ig 60 or so so this maybe makes some sense
 

PeterFig

Professional
There are reasons why manufacturers (not just Wilson) don't post RA and swingweight numbers. They are just not as reflective, accurate, and consistent to the actual playability of the racquet. There are other factors at play that influence those two numbers. That's why I don't think it's too much use debating and fussing over those two numbers. It's best just to demo. No matter if it's a Wilson, a Babolat, Head, etc.

I'm not trying to make a case for or against the Ultra Tour. I have not hit with it. I don't know how it feels. But in 'real life' for example I have a RF97 and an Ultra 97. The Ultra has a lower RA number than the RF97 but when I play with both the RF97 feels noticeably more flexible, softer, less stiff than the Ultra. That's real world feedback. That's all that matters to me. (RF97 is 68, Ultra 97 is 64 just FYI). So I would not write off or fall in love with a racquet.... any racquet based on RA numbers. Try it. See how it feels for you.
 

macattack

Professional
There are reasons why manufacturers (not just Wilson) don't post RA and swingweight numbers. They are just not as reflective, accurate, and consistent to the actual playability of the racquet. There are other factors at play that influence those two numbers. That's why I don't think it's too much use debating and fussing over those two numbers. It's best just to demo. No matter if it's a Wilson, a Babolat, Head, etc.

I'm not trying to make a case for or against the Ultra Tour. I have not hit with it. I don't know how it feels. But in 'real life' for example I have a RF97 and an Ultra 97. The Ultra has a lower RA number than the RF97 but when I play with both the RF97 feels noticeably more flexible, softer, less stiff than the Ultra. That's real world feedback. That's all that matters to me. (RF97 is 68, Ultra 97 is 64 just FYI). So I would not write off or fall in love with a racquet.... any racquet based on RA numbers. Try it. See how it feels for you.
So true. My old PSC 6.1 has an RA of 70 and plays just as plush as some of my sticks with RAs in the mid-60s.
 

PeterFig

Professional
So true. My old PSC 6.1 has an RA of 70 and plays just as plush as some of my sticks with RAs in the mid-60s.
Yup. So many factors involved including material composition, beam width at different points in the racquet, and more .... I am a bit of a gear head. I do fiddle with and customize my racquets, but I also know when not to worry about 'numbers' and go by how something feels when actually on court and hitting a ball. In the end that's the ONLY thing that's important.
 

PeterFig

Professional
Another great example (and excuse the Wilson prevalence here but it's the brand I've had the most experience with) is the Blade 98. The RA is 66 but when I play with it I have never thought of it as anything close to 'stiff'. The thing is the RA is measured by applying force to the tip of the racquet. But that's NOT where the ball makes impact and as a result that's not what you actually experience when playing. The new Blades in fact have braided materials around the 3&9 position of the hoop (where the ball actually makes contact - well hopefully makes contact) and that braided construction flexes more than regular graphite composition. So as a result at impact the racquet feels actually fairly soft and not stiff at all. But you would never get that when just looking at the RA number as it doesn't fully take into account those variations.
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
So true. My old PSC 6.1 has an RA of 70 and plays just as plush as some of my sticks with RAs in the mid-60s.
Yeah, I some racquets off **** and out of the three, I thought that the Wilson PSC 6.1 would be the one I would sell on due to the high RA value... I tried it as I knew it had a huge cult following. I was amazed at how well I played with it and how similar it felt to some of my racquets with much lower RA values. It is now firmly in my bag and will not be sold. This taught me to just try a racquet and then make up my mind about whether I like it or not...

I've tried other racquets that have had lower RA values that felt stiffer or had small sweet spots or I just didn't gel with for a myriad of reasons I did not even anticipate. I was convinced it was going to be my next racquet and it turned out to be a flop...

Try it... then comment.
 

Tommy Haas

Hall of Fame
Does the Wilson PSC 6.1 have Amplifeel in the handle? Is that what compensates for the high RA?

Flexpoint and everything else Head comes up with looks good on paper and sounds good in theory, but we know that always isn't the case.

 

macattack

Professional
Does the Wilson PSC 6.1 have Amplifeel in the handle? Is that what compensates for the high RA?

Flexpoint and everything else Head comes up with looks good on paper and sounds good in theory, but we know that always isn't the case.

The PSC version doesn't have amplifeel. The PSC was the first 6.1 iteration and lasted from 1991 to the late 90s if I remember correctly. It just has braided graphite and kevlar.
 

AMGF

Professional
There are reasons why manufacturers (not just Wilson) don't post RA and swingweight numbers. They are just not as reflective, accurate, and consistent to the actual playability of the racquet. There are other factors at play that influence those two numbers. That's why I don't think it's too much use debating and fussing over those two numbers. It's best just to demo. No matter if it's a Wilson, a Babolat, Head, etc.

I'm not trying to make a case for or against the Ultra Tour. I have not hit with it. I don't know how it feels. But in 'real life' for example I have a RF97 and an Ultra 97. The Ultra has a lower RA number than the RF97 but when I play with both the RF97 feels noticeably more flexible, softer, less stiff than the Ultra. That's real world feedback. That's all that matters to me. (RF97 is 68, Ultra 97 is 64 just FYI). So I would not write off or fall in love with a racquet.... any racquet based on RA numbers. Try it. See how it feels for you.
Isn't in most part due to the foam? The RF97 is foam filled and so is the 6.1. Foam absorbs vibration and I'm pretty sure it's responsable for the softer feel. I have a 70ra Angell you'd swear is low 60 at best.

The Ultra Tour has 63ra but being foam filled it probably feels a lot softer than a similar empty 63 but otherwise empty frame. That's pretty much why everyone that tested it so far said it feels softer than its ra rating.

What I'd really like to try is an actual 57-58 foam filled H19. It probably feels like puppy ears in a velvet pouch. (Blue Mountain State reference for those who watched the series). ;)

I disagree that SW or ra is not relevant information. SW in particular tells quite a lot about a frame. I think manfacturers don't give the info because the strings have a really large influence on the final number. Some companies probably also have the (poor) quality control that prevent them from doing so. Finally, ra probably doesn't interest anyone outside tt.
 
Last edited:

dgoran

Hall of Fame
There are reasons why manufacturers (not just Wilson) don't post RA and swingweight numbers. They are just not as reflective, accurate, and consistent to the actual playability of the racquet. There are other factors at play that influence those two numbers. That's why I don't think it's too much use debating and fussing over those two numbers. It's best just to demo. No matter if it's a Wilson, a Babolat, Head, etc.

I'm not trying to make a case for or against the Ultra Tour. I have not hit with it. I don't know how it feels. But in 'real life' for example I have a RF97 and an Ultra 97. The Ultra has a lower RA number than the RF97 but when I play with both the RF97 feels noticeably more flexible, softer, less stiff than the Ultra. That's real world feedback. That's all that matters to me. (RF97 is 68, Ultra 97 is 64 just FYI). So I would not write off or fall in love with a racquet.... any racquet based on RA numbers. Try it. See how it feels for you.
I would agree with you in this current "world of 64-72ra" that every manufacturer is playing in, by using thinner and thinner "walls" with higher rigidity to compensate and save benjamins and adding all kinds of "technology" to reduce racquet vibration their current manuf. process is introducing to the product their are trying to sell to us, BUT if you ever played with 51-58 ra frame you will know there is a real difference in RA numbers and 57 cannot be confused with 63 no matter what "technology" they introduce to it and this is coming from somebody who likes current CV "tech" and prefer latest blades to the older ones.

Additionally what is also concerning that given industry's/Wilson's infamous QC you will get one that is 65RA and another with 61 problem that would not be so apparent with 57 +-2. In my experience I can more readily detect differences in flex as RA numbers go up. So I would be hard pressed to guess 57 from 55 but I would feel 63 and 65 easily. Maybe its just me?
 
Last edited:

macattack

Professional
I would agree with you in this current "world of 64-72ra" that every manufacturer is playing in, by using thinner and thinner "walls" with higher rigidity to compensate and save benjamins and adding all kinds of "technology" to reduce racquet vibration their current manuf. process is introducing to the product their are trying to sell to us, BUT if you ever played with 51-58 ra frame you will know there is a real difference in RA numbers and 57 cannot be confused with 63 no matter what "technology" they introduce to it and this is coming from somebody who likes current CV "tech" and prefer latest blades to the older ones.

Additionally what is also concerning that given industry's/Wilson's infamous QC you will get one that is 65RA and another with 61 problem that would not be so apparent with 57 +-2. In my experience I can more readily detect differences in flex as RA numbers go up. So I would be hard pressed to guess 57 from 55 but I would feel 63 and 65 easily. Maybe its just me?
There is no doubt that my H19 with an RA of 58 feels much more buttery than my PSC with a 70 RA. But I still stand by the point that the RA measurement isn't always representative of how a racquet feels.
 

jmacdaununder2

Hall of Fame
So true. My old PSC 6.1 has an RA of 70 and plays just as plush as some of my sticks with RAs in the mid-60s.
Suppose that's due to the racquet's age and the 20% Kevlar composition?
Edit: And as others have suggested, foam filling would no doubt make a difference.
 
Last edited:

jmacdaununder2

Hall of Fame
Another great example (and excuse the Wilson prevalence here but it's the brand I've had the most experience with) is the Blade 98. The RA is 66 but when I play with it I have never thought of it as anything close to 'stiff'. The thing is the RA is measured by applying force to the tip of the racquet. But that's NOT where the ball makes impact and as a result that's not what you actually experience when playing. The new Blades in fact have braided materials around the 3&9 position of the hoop (where the ball actually makes contact - well hopefully makes contact) and that braided construction flexes more than regular graphite composition. So as a result at impact the racquet feels actually fairly soft and not stiff at all. But you would never get that when just looking at the RA number as it doesn't fully take into account those variations.
Sadly, these days the ball contacts the 3 - or 9 - position all too often; I used to like it better when it hit the strings more regularly...
 

PeterFig

Professional
I disagree that SW or ra is not relevant information. SW in particular tells quite a lot about a frame. I think manfacturers don't give the info because the strings have a really large influence on the final number. Some companies probably also have the (poor) quality control that prevent them from doing so. Finally, ra probably doesn't interest anyone outside tt.
I stated that it's less accurate and has more factors that influence it - not that it's not relevant.
Static weight is easy to measure, consistent, not dependant on any other factors (well other than gravity - but let's assume we are all playing on the same planet) :):)

All I'm saying is that a 310g racquet when measured on a scale is just that - a 310g racquet. Nothing really influences that measurement.

However a 63 vs 65 RA racquet measurement takes into account various inconsistant factors so a 63 RA racquet from one brand / model may not feel (as stiff) the same as another. Hence my suggestion to try the racquet first and not include/exclude by RA numbers alone. No matter of brand, model, etc. That's all I'm suggesting here. Not delving into "foam filled" or "QC". Just a simple suggestion that one should not live and die by the RA number alone.
 
Last edited:

Panquake

Rookie
Can you compare it with a blade 18x20; The new blades have become bulky with the added countervail and i am not a fan of the new feel....also they have increased their power. I felt more connected with 2015 blades.

What about spin potential ; 97sq head with 18x20 may be an issue for intermediate players.

I am also curious how it compares with another great stick the Burn FST 95....;
I can compare it to the Burn FST 95, when I get the demo, as the Burn FST used to be my competition racket. I can try to compare to the 18x20 blade, but I have not hit with it that much



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Crie

Rookie
I stated that it's less accurate and has more factors that influence it - not that it's not relevant.
Yeah but I can say that about string patterns too...

A Pure Aero string pattern is 16x19. Fed's custom 90 was a 16x19, but its so tight you can consider it an 18x20...
 

Crie

Rookie
There are reasons why manufacturers (not just Wilson) don't post RA and swingweight numbers. They are just not as reflective, accurate, and consistent to the actual playability of the racquet.
I totally agree with swingweight

Its the twistweight that kills the racquet...

The Pure Strike is just a slower version of the DR98...
 

Tommy Haas

Hall of Fame
@PeterFig did you design the Ultra Tour's graphics? Many have complimented on the graphics and said it was Pro Tour like. What I liked most about the Head Twaron frames was the paint. The small flecks of shiny metal mixed in like automotive paint. It's a shame that type of paint isn't used anymore.
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
There are reasons why manufacturers (not just Wilson) don't post RA and swingweight numbers.
Of course, but taking into account your job for the industry, we could hardly agree on what would be the main reasons for not reporting those numbers :)

All I'm saying is that a 310g racquet when measured on a scale is just that - a 310g racquet. Nothing really influences that measurement.
Nothing influences other measurements as well. And I don't see why SW would be less significant than weight, for example.
You probably wanted to say about the significance of each. But then again, don't expect all to agree on those views. I think many will find each of the specs important. Including TW. Now, specs tolerance would be something nice to report as well, in honest business.

The new Blades in fact have braided materials around the 3&9 position of the hoop (where the ball actually makes contact - well hopefully makes contact)
No...for the groundstrokes. Actually we typically hit groundstrokes at the spot closer to 10+2 o'clock position. 3+9 o'clock position hitting spot refers to volleying.

But then again, why do you expect that much a difference between flexing at the tip and flexing at the hitting spot, when it comes to racquet-to-racquet comparison? And where is the influence of weight related to the comfort? Does weight of the racquet influence the comfort? Does weight distribution influence the comfort? And how's that related to the flex?
 
Last edited:

AMGF

Professional
I stated that it's less accurate and has more factors that influence it - not that it's not relevant.
Static weight is easy to measure, consistent, not dependant on any other factors (well other than gravity - but let's assume we are all playing on the same planet) :):)

All I'm saying is that a 310g racquet when measured on a scale is just that - a 310g racquet. Nothing really influences that measurement.

However a 63 vs 65 RA racquet measurement takes into account various inconsistant factors so a 63 RA racquet from one brand / model may not feel (as stiff) the same as another. Hence my suggestion to try the racquet first and not include/exclude by RA numbers alone. No matter of brand, model, etc. That's all I'm suggesting here. Not delving into "foam filled" or "QC". Just a simple suggestion that one should not live and die by the RA number alone.
This I agree with 100%. Anyone can measure weight but ra needs the RDC machine (unless there is another way that I'm not aware of). I can't wait to get other stores/people ra measurents as someone in here got a 58 reading. It could very well be variance in the RDC machine. Or, for once, I wish it's variance in QC, that way I could snitch a sub 60 one. ;)

But I will give this one a play test. I might even get one just on looks alone, I like how the color stripes design turned out on the UT.
 

PeterFig

Professional
@PeterFig did you design the Ultra Tour's graphics? Many have complimented on the graphics and said it was Pro Tour like. What I liked most about the Head Twaron frames was the paint. The small flecks of shiny metal mixed in like automotive paint. It's a shame that type of paint isn't used anymore.
I worked on the base design for the Ultra - but some decisions like which models were the velvet finish vs gloss were done after my time.
The Ultra XP racquets have / had exactly the kind of graphite / flecky automotive finish to the paint you mentioned. In fact that was the inspiration for both the paint finish and some of the designs details of the Ultra XP frames: high end cars.
 

dgoran

Hall of Fame
From local Wilson rep. They are getting new Ultras by August 15th. Funny thing is, they were not going to stock any Ultra Tour, because they don't think it will sell. I had to convince them to get at least one for me :)
Besides us on this thread I doubt there will be hardly any interest, unfortunately...because if it's any good I want it to succeed now that Head is out of the game...
 
Top