Wilson Ultra Tour (Monfils)

Zoolander

Hall of Fame
I've had some come very high in weight and SW, and Ive had other that come below 300g and 290sw
Wow thats a difference. I fancy they offer pros different layups not just for a different flex but for different Initial Swingweights to suit whatever customisation they want to do?
 

AMGF

Hall of Fame
Well tested the Ultra Tour tonight and it didn't feel underpowered. Here's a few hits with the Sony sensor.


 

Tommy Haas

Hall of Fame
Well tested the Ultra Tour tonight and it didn't feel underpowered. Here's a few hits with the Sony sensor.
Does Sony already have the Ultra Tour listed as preset frame? It can't be that accurate if the specs aren't precise for correct calculations.

Can the sensor be fooled if you took an air swing and does it report the same numbers if you hit with a dead ball versus a new ball?
 

AMGF

Hall of Fame
Does Sony already have the Ultra Tour listed as preset frame? It can't be that accurate if the specs aren't precise for correct calculations.

Can the sensor be fooled if you took an air swing and does it report the same numbers if you hit with a dead ball versus a new ball?
The Ultra Tour is already up in the system. If you take air swings nothing registers. I never hit dead balls I only play with new balls. I guess I could test new balls vs old just to see what the sensor would read? Could be interesting to see the results.
 

AMGF

Hall of Fame
Copy paste from the Angell vs UT thread:

Ok so tonight I played for about two hours with the Ultra Tour. It is a surprisingly stable racquet, I hit the first 20min completely stock (besides the og) and it was already really pretty good. I read all the post about it being underpowered but I still managed a 86mph forehand (Sony Sensor) completely stock. But it is too light and too low a SW for me and I added about 5g from 10 to 2 right after this.

It is a very precise frame, ball will go exactly where you point it. Spin and power were excellent for me. It also felt quite good though not overly soft, I would have prefered if Wilson would have offered it at sub 60ra.

Now compared to the TC97... That's a tough one. The Tc97 18m have been my main frames for the last year and they are perfectly tuned while the UT I just got it today and put some lead on it. So for now the TC97 is still the best frame in my opinion. Pretty sure the UT could be tuned to rival them. But as of now, I feel like I get more spin and more power from my TC97, but the UT feels more stable. If Angell didn't exist, I'd be happy with the Ultra Tour.

Two things that are less important but worth considering, first, the sound from the Ultra Tour is pretty good. Sounds like a quality frame. I hate when a frame has a high pitch sound, this Wilson doesn't have this problem. Second, the paint looks pretty good. Not sure it is as high quality as the Angell, but it does look pretty nice, the light blue pops out against the dark blue.

Final thought, I hit a couple service returns that I hit squarely in the sweet spot and it felt awesome. Hard to explain but very satisfying sound/feel, and the ball just shot out of the racquet like a cannonball. Felt real good.

I'm pretty sure this won't replace my Angells, but I can tell you the UT is a very good frame stock and has lots of tuning room. I'm glad we finally have a solid player's frame offering from one of the big companies. I believe all the talk around Angell might have influenced Wilson. But you can't beat Angell with customization, my Angells TC97 18m are 27,5in long. Paul will make the frame I want while I can make the UT close to what I need, but it can hardly be exactly like I want it.
 

Tommy Haas

Hall of Fame
@AMGF did you use a string dampener on your Ultra Tour? If it's completely foam filled or it's so solidly constructed, a string dampener isn't needed like how most pros don't use them with their pro stock frames. If pros used retail frames, I bet they would absolutely use a string dampener to quell the annoying pinging sound. Pros are so aurally sensitive that the ping would drive them nuts.
 

Anton

Legend
So I put my already leaded up UT with OG and rubber band on the scales today...11.6oz 7hl! Probably got one slightly under spec and 18g string is also a bit lighter.

MOAR LEAD - I now have two .25" strips of lead spanning the entire loop from 7 to 5 and 4g on V throat - 11.9oz...on to the courts!

Amazing how sometimes adding weight actually ends up making frame feel swifter, but surely more weight will mean more power on flatter shots...NOPE, the extra spin seems to have made up for it. Between extra weight and loosening up of the strings frame played much better now - no more hotspots, more spin, more stability, more control, even more plush.

UT stock is quickly rising.
 

AMGF

Hall of Fame
@AMGF did you use a string dampener on your Ultra Tour? If it's completely foam filled or it's so solidly constructed, a string dampener isn't needed like how most pros don't use them with their pro stock frames. If pros used retail frames, I bet they would absolutely use a string dampener to quell the annoying pinging sound. Pros are so aurally sensitive that the ping would drive them nuts.
No dampener. I don't feel I need it. Makes a thump sound. Pinging sound drive me nuts as well. :)
 

AMGF

Hall of Fame
I did get some handle buzz without rubber band
Yeah I read about your experience but I didn't get that. Is your handle foam filled or do you have sillicone? It seems some people have sillicone but mine is all foam.
 

Murray_fan1

Professional
This does take weight really well. Leather grip, overgrip and couple grams on each side at 3 and 9 have made a very playable stock racquet exceptional.
 

Tommy Haas

Hall of Fame
Well it's better than woah that one was good... ;)
I wonder if the racquet sensor manufacturers juice up the MPH to make us feel good about the product. Basically, it shows us what we want to see reaffirming the purchase. Has anyone ever compared sensor readings with a radar gun? Similar to tarot card readings. I should search for that.
 

AMGF

Hall of Fame
I wonder if the racquet sensor manufacturers juice up the MPH to make us feel good about the product. Basically, it shows us what we want to see reaffirming the purchase. Has anyone ever compared sensor readings with a radar gun? Similar to tarot card readings. I should search for that.
I have a radar and meant to test both alongside each other but never got to do it.

I can tell you for sure that these devices usually make people cry and not feel good. You know the guys that think they have 115mph serve that can barely crack 90mph usually think these devices read low. I'm not sure of the overall accuracy, but for sure when you hit a faster ball you get a higher reading. That thing is really consistent. The radar is different because if the ball crosses the radar at an angle you can get a very low reading even though you hit a fast ball.

But my point was just that some people mentioned the lack of power, if you have a good swing, it has all the power you need. With control to help. I personnally don't like powerful frames, I don't think the UT was meant for those looking for help with power, but help with control. I could be mistaken though.
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
Yeah I kinda wish it was lower, at least 350. Oh well I'm gonna cut 1/4 inch off soon
I thought the H19/22 pro stocks came quite head heavy before customisation which would make a high inital SW, given the static weight.

One reason i was never too keen to try them.
Yeah I've checked under the bumper, no lead at all. The previous owner of the racket even cut off part of the bumper guard because he felt it was too heavy. Sigh... Ive been looking for a replacement bumper ever since.

On another note, I have a H22 16x19 prototype from Wilson, no lead at all, with a 365 strung SW. It hits a massive ball. It was supposedly a test racket for Michael Russell.
Seems like Wilson makes it directly for certain players, closer to their specs...
 

Panquake

Rookie
Yeah I've checked under the bumper, no lead at all. The previous owner of the racket even cut off part of the bumper guard because he felt it was too heavy. Sigh... Ive been looking for a replacement bumper ever since.

On another note, I have a H22 16x19 prototype from Wilson, no lead at all, with a 365 strung SW. It hits a massive ball. It was supposedly a test racket for Michael Russell.
Dang I wish I could have that racket


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Panquake

Rookie
I played doubles league tonight and the UT is great! I take back what I said earlier. I'll write a review when I have time tomorrow


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
For total of 4 grams at 3+9 o'clock I recommend balancing with 2 grams near the butt, as both positions are pretty neutral regarding changing how a racquet swings.

Top of the handle counterbalancing is useful whe adding lead at 12 o'clock, because those spots change how a racquet swings big. In which case you need to put twice as much (of what you put at 12 o'clock) at the top of the handle to counter both balance and swing.

If you combine, as you suggest, both 3+9 o'clock lead and 12 o'clock lead, you can combine as well lead at the top of the handle with the lead near the butt cap. Pro customizers do this. All apply silicone (near the butt) and there's usually some lead wrapped at the top of the handle too. Getting the balance right is mostly math. But getting the swing right is the best if based on trying how it feels, through shadow swings, and when hitting the ball. Math can help there (MgR/I) but fine tuning is best done based on experience.

All in all, you said it all :)
I completely agree... I actually do add some weight around the butt cap as well but didn't want to complicate all the positions for the person... was trying to tell them that they need to make sure they counterbalance the weight they are adding to the head...

I usually add equal amounts to the 12 o'clock position and the butt cap area... and then maybe put more at the 7" position based on how much I put at the 3 & 9...

I thought that the 7" above butt cap was to offset the 3 &9 o'clock weightings with the depolarised setup... I just found that on some racquets the top of the hoop felt deader and so I also added at 12 and around butt cap... but that was also, as you said, after feeling how it swings and plays... just felt better when I did it.. so that's now my set up for all racquets... but if it doesn't feel right I tinker...
 

Panquake

Rookie
I completely agree... I actually do add some weight around the butt cap as well but didn't want to complicate all the positions for the person... was trying to tell them that they need to make sure they counterbalance the weight they are adding to the head...

I usually add equal amounts to the 12 o'clock position and the butt cap area... and then maybe put more at the 7" position based on how much I put at the 3 & 9...

I thought that the 7" above butt cap was to offset the 3 &9 o'clock weightings with the depolarised setup... I just found that on some racquets the top of the hoop felt deader and so I also added at 12 and around butt cap... but that was also, as you said, after feeling how it swings and plays... just felt better when I did it.. so that's now my set up for all racquets... but if it doesn't feel right I tinker...
Weight at 7" increases MgR/I, read some of @travlerajm 's posts if you don't know what that is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
I completely agree... I actually do add some weight around the butt cap as well but didn't want to complicate all the positions for the person... was trying to tell them that they need to make sure they counterbalance the weight they are adding to the head...

I usually add equal amounts to the 12 o'clock position and the butt cap area... and then maybe put more at the 7" position based on how much I put at the 3 & 9...

I thought that the 7" above butt cap was to offset the 3 &9 o'clock weightings with the depolarised setup... I just found that on some racquets the top of the hoop felt deader and so I also added at 12 and around butt cap... but that was also, as you said, after feeling how it swings and plays... just felt better when I did it.. so that's now my set up for all racquets... but if it doesn't feel right I tinker...
Weight at 7" increases MgR/I, read some of @travlerajm 's posts if you don't know what that is
I slowed down myself at mentioning MgR/I since it associates some players with some dark and unsupported math :) however it can easily be tested that placing lead at the top of the handle or the throat changes pretty much how a racquet swings, beyond its balance influence. And that it influences the swing in a different way to placing mass at the butt cap.

Same is valid for 10-2 o'clock zone, and especially at 11-1 o'clock this influence on changing the swing is huge, even more changing how racquet swings than everything else.

It boils down to pretty much how racquet swung prior to leading up. If it swung already perfectly or near perfectly, then math says this: if you put 3 grams at 12 o'clock, you need 7 grams at the top of the handle to compensate the influence on the swing which 3 grams of lead at 12 o'clock has caused. This is determined by MgR/I physics/math. I say it's roughly twice the quantity on the top of the handle to what you put at 12 o'clock. At the same time it's roughly a full balance compensation as well.

Now, if you counterbalance lead at 12 o'clock by placing mass at the butt, it's really good for polarization, however what happens then is a huge change of swing and it's uncertain where will it end and how will it feel when you get to desired SW. It can turn out fine. It can turn out cr*ppy. It's certainly a big change in how racquet swings. And IME it can work (whether one will like it or not, this is different) when you do this with a platform where you increase SW significantly. Then you can find some quite different spot of specs where racquet agains swings effortlessly. But it's about some customization tuning for the perfect swing, or pure luck to hit such a specs spot.

Counterbalancing with roughly twice the mass at the top of the handle keeps as much neutrality on customization as possible. The rest is fine tuning that can go either direction, and it really depends on how racquet swung prior to customization. With the end customization you can fine tune it to the point where it gets even better...unless it was already perfect in stock form, in which case you need to fine tune it to end specs to find such a specs spot where it again swings perfectly.

Fine tuning is a matter of feel, using shadow swinging and hitting the ball then using bit of putty here or there to find where it feels the best, then finishing customization to those specs. Putty is nice as you can easily place it almost anywhere on a racquet and as you can quickly change its position and quantity right at the court (or at the wall).
 
Last edited:

zalive

Hall of Fame
Yeah I've checked under the bumper, no lead at all. The previous owner of the racket even cut off part of the bumper guard because he felt it was too heavy. Sigh... Ive been looking for a replacement bumper ever since.

On another note, I have a H22 16x19 prototype from Wilson, no lead at all, with a 365 strung SW. It hits a massive ball. It was supposedly a test racket for Michael Russell.
I've had some come very high in weight and SW, and Ive had other that come below 300g and 290sw
Obviously two types of Wilson pro stocks, providing they all are without added lead...one is pure platform with lower SW, the other is layup already made for certain player or certain type of player.
I wonder whether Head operates on similar principles when it comes to pro stocks, or they rather make just pure platforms leaving it completely to customizers to pump up specs.
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
Weight at 7" increases MgR/I, read some of @travlerajm 's posts if you don't know what that is


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I read it a long time ago... memory starts to fail as the enjoyment of tennis and actual feel of the racquet when playing takes over... 20.7-21.1 MgR/I range being the optimum for success (at least with ATP players) and the most clustered figure being 20.9...
 

Panquake

Rookie
I read it a long time ago... memory starts to fail as the enjoyment of tennis and actual feel of the racquet when playing takes over... 20.7-21.1 MgR/I range being the optimum for success (at least with ATP players) and the most clustered figure being 20.9...
20.9 is for the ones that are about 6'2, for someone 5'11, 21.0 is optimum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
I read it a long time ago... memory starts to fail as the enjoyment of tennis and actual feel of the racquet when playing takes over... 20.7-21.1 MgR/I range being the optimum for success (at least with ATP players) and the most clustered figure being 20.9...
There's more than one good specs spot, though around 21 (more or less, subjective on a player and depending on measurement accuracy as well) might be the most natural one.

Still good results can be around 20.7. And lower, around 20.3-20.4. Those spots offer better than average performance and racquet that swings effortlessly.
Some pro players like Nadal or Novak have setups tuned to MgR/I around 20.3. I tried this (20.3-20.4) and there's definitely a good customization spot there, though in the end it feels differently to me and I cannot hit as well as if it's around 21 or around 20.7. But it's still worth experimenting for me, possibly I still didn't find a perfect spot there. What I liked with MgR/I around 20.3 is that you can get a very light custom racquet with a powerful SW which swings pretty easily, as it's easier to go polarized without too much lead on the handle side (basically you can get away with minimum lead at the top of the handle, the rest goes to the butt to shift the balance point).

The important, one does not need to be bothered at all with MgR/I math. But knowing what putting mass to certain zones of a racquet does to how it will swing is of paramount importance to any ambitious self-customizer.
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
20.9 is for the ones that are about 6'2, for someone 5'11, 21.0 is optimum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm 6'... so mine is between 20.9 and 21.0...
There's more than one good specs spot, though around 21 (more or less, subjective on a player and depending on measurement accuracy as well) might be the most natural one.

Still good results can be around 20.7. And lower, around 20.3-20.4. Those spots offer better than average performance and racquet that swings effortlessly.
Some pro players like Nadal or Novak have setups tuned to MgR/I around 20.3. I tried this (20.3-20.4) and there's definitely a good customization spot there, though in the end it feels differently to me and I cannot hit as well as if it's around 21 or around 20.7. But it's still worth experimenting for me, possibly I still didn't find a perfect spot there. What I liked with MgR/I around 20.3 is that you can get a very light custom racquet with a powerful SW which swings pretty easily, as it's easier to go polarized without too much lead on the handle side (basically you can get away with minimum lead at the top of the handle, the rest goes to the butt to shift the balance point).

The important, one does not need to be bothered at all with MgR/I math. But knowing what putting mass to certain zones of a racquet does to how it will swing is of paramount importance to any ambitious self-customizer.
I completely agree with you and your last point...
 

AMGF

Hall of Fame
MGR/I=21 is BS. When I showed the latest mgr/i value for the current top players (not the Jura data from 2007) the cluster was at 20.0. Travlerajm came back with the silly concept of wrists bands to try to make believe the players are still currently playing with 21.0 set up when the weight of the wrist bands are taken into account. I'm not making this stuff up, there really is a thread somewhere with sweat bands and lower mgr/i of current pros trying to be linked to mgr=21!

MGR/I is the polarization of the frame. Today's pros (men and women) prefer higher SW relative to static weight (polarized), decreasing mgr/i. But pros don't care about maths, they care about winning. And current top players win with low mgr/i. Because that's how you achieve big power and big spin from the baseline. That's what's winning right now.

Now mgr/i is not useless, it's a nice way to gauge the polarization and figure out your set up. But because Thiem, Nadal or Serena have mgr/i=20 doesn't mean you should use that yourself. But because Rod Laver, Lendl and Agassi had mgr/i=21 doesn't mean you should aim for that either. :p

This thread has been taken over by the mgr/i religion, I hope it will be back to the Ultra Tour quickly.
 

zalive

Hall of Fame
Possibly they played with MgR/I around 21 earlier, but it has changed. There are other playable spots, like 20.3. Possibly 20.0 as well, as you say. probably. IMO it's cyclic, and probably coming around fine with each 0.3-0.4 pts difference.
Nevertheless 21 is not BS to rec players, as a playable spot. And the whole thing has to be taken cum grano salis.
 

Classic-TXP-IG MID

Hall of Fame
MGR/I=21 is BS. When I showed the latest mgr/i value for the current top players (not the Jura data from 2007) the cluster was at 20.0. Travlerajm came back with the silly concept of wrists bands to try to make believe the players are still currently playing with 21.0 set up when the weight of the wrist bands are taken into account. I'm not making this stuff up, there really is a thread somewhere with sweat bands and lower mgr/i of current pros trying to be linked to mgr=21!

MGR/I is the polarization of the frame. Today's pros (men and women) prefer higher SW relative to static weight (polarized), decreasing mgr/i. But pros don't care about maths, they care about winning. And current top players win with low mgr/i. Because that's how you achieve big power and big spin from the baseline. That's what's winning right now.

Now mgr/i is not useless, it's a nice way to gauge the polarization and figure out your set up. But because Thiem, Nadal or Serena have mgr/i=20 doesn't mean you should use that yourself. But because Rod Laver, Lendl and Agassi had mgr/i=21 doesn't mean you should aim for that either. :p

This thread has been taken over by the mgr/i religion, I hope it will be back to the Ultra Tour quickly.
All I said is that I add some weight at the 7" mark as part of my customisation... somehow it started being about MgR/I... I never mentioned it... or measured it...

So I agree with you @AMGF ... back to the Ultra Tour...
 

Tommy Haas

Hall of Fame
I'm not making this stuff up, there really is a thread somewhere with sweat bands and lower mgr/i of current pros trying to be linked to mgr=21!
Would the concept of sprung weight apply here? I think weight above the pivot point of the hand matters much more than below it at the wrist. Though there are actually two pivot points in the swing, the first being the elbow. Anything more technical than RA and SW is beyond me. I still don't know what MgR/I stands for and can't find anything in the TWU about it.
 

AMGF

Hall of Fame
All I said is that I add some weight at the 7" mark as part of my customisation... somehow it started being about MgR/I... I never mentioned it... or measured it...

So I agree with you @AMGF ... back to the Ultra Tour...
I agree, I prefer counterweight at the top of the handle too. But my #1 choice is to replace the original synthetic grip with a leather grip.
 

AMGF

Hall of Fame
Would the concept of sprung weight apply here? I think weight above the pivot point of the hand matters much more than below it at the wrist. Though there are actually two pivot points in the swing, the first being the elbow. Anything more technical than RA and SW is beyond me. I still don't know what MgR/I stands for and can't find anything in the TWU about it.
Well there is some logic behind this, it's double pendulum physics. But a tennis swing is a lot more complex than just a double pendulum and in the end, it just happened that during a certain era, call it the service volley era, depolarized frames worked best. In the power/spin era, polarized is best. Everything in between is personnal preferences. There is no magic number.
 

moon shot

Hall of Fame
C'mon guys, Novak's mold is is most similar to a Ti.radical or a H22 prostock when was with Wilson. Wilson paints H22 frames like the burn usually. The Burn 100S is Wilsons latest attempt at a Aero competitor ergo the Pure Aero is the closest thing to Djokovic's frame.
 

onarj

New User
So I put my already leaded up UT with OG and rubber band on the scales today...11.6oz 7hl! Probably got one slightly under spec and 18g string is also a bit lighter.

MOAR LEAD - I now have two .25" strips of lead spanning the entire loop from 7 to 5 and 4g on V throat - 11.9oz...on to the courts!

Amazing how sometimes adding weight actually ends up making frame feel swifter, but surely more weight will mean more power on flatter shots...NOPE, the extra spin seems to have made up for it. Between extra weight and loosening up of the strings frame played much better now - no more hotspots, more spin, more stability, more control, even more plush.

UT stock is quickly rising.
Can you send me pictures of where you added the lead? :) Im a rookie in leading racquets. How about the balance after you added lead - is it still HL?
 

onarj

New User
Dont you guys think the buttcap is quite big for the UT? Im used to Head and I even think the buttcap on the Blade 98 was quite big, but the UT is even bigger.
 

jmacdaununder2

Hall of Fame
C'mon guys, Novak's mold is is most similar to a Ti.radical or a H22 prostock when was with Wilson. Wilson paints H22 frames like the burn usually. The Burn 100S is Wilsons latest attempt at a Aero competitor ergo the Pure Aero is the closest thing to Djokovic's frame.
Excellent non sequitur my friend! :) A ham sandwich is better than complete happiness, because nothing is better than complete happiness, and a ham sandwich is certainly better than nothing. ;)
 
Top