Home GearTennis RacquetsRacquet Reviews New HEAD Gravity Racquets Review (2021)

New HEAD Gravity Racquets Review (2021)

by TN

I have been play-testing the 2021 HEAD Gravity racquets, which is just a paint update. Here is my new HEAD Gravity racquets review.

To clarify: the new HEAD Gravity racquets review is me revisiting my previous review from 2019. I really liked the racquets back then and was especially taken by the HEAD Gravity Pro, which I compare to the Prestige MP in this video. The Gravity Tour is also good, but I find the ball to sail a little bit with that racquet and I prefer the plow-through that the Pro model gives you. The Gravity MP is also a decent racquet, but it needs a bit of weight to play more stable. The Gravity S is, like all S-racquets from HEAD, more of a “tweener frame” with a generous amount of spin and power offered by the 24 mm beam.

If you want to buy the new HEAD Gravity racquets (or anything else tennis-related, please check out my affiliates Tennis Warehouse (US), Tennis Warehouse Europe and Tennis Only (AUS). You will save quite a bit of money if you can find the older paint job, released in 2019, but it depends on how important the cosmetics are to you.

I am focusing this post on the Gravity Pro and Tour, which are my preferred models. I will also do a some content with the Gravity S coming up and if you’re interested in how you can customize the Gravity S to be a more advanced-level weapon, check out my Patreon page.

Design

The new Gravity racquets have a similar design to the previous edition, but with a “fresher” color-way. Instead of the red and green, they now have the paint going from lime green to yellow on one side and baby-blue to purple on the other. I think it looks really nice, but racquet design is obviously highly subjective.

Spec check

HEAD Gravity Pro

Unstrung specs

Head size: 100 sq inches
Length: 27 in (standard)
Weight: 315g / 11.11 oz
Balance: 31.5 cm / 9 pts HL
Beam: 20 mm
String pattern: 18×20
Stiffness: 64 RA

My strung specs with the factory string were Weight: 327.4g / 11.75 oz Balance: 33 cm / 4 pts HL, 341.5 SW

HEAD Gravity Tour

Unstrung specs

Head size: 100 sq inches
Length: 27 in (standard)
Weight: 305g / 10.75 oz
Balance: 32 cm / 7 pts HL
Beam: 22 mm
String pattern: 18×20
Stiffness: 65 RA

My strung specs with HEAD Lynx Tour (m) and HEAD Hawk Touch (c) were: 327.2g, 32.3 cm / 6 pts HL, 319 SW

HEAD Gravity MP

Head size: 100 sq inches
Length: 27 in (standard)
Weight: 295g / 10.4 oz
Balance: 32.5 cm / 5 pts HL
Beam: 22 mm
String pattern: 16×20
Stiffness: 65 RA

HEAD Gravity S

Head size: 104 sq inches
Length: 27 in (standard)
Weight: 285 g / 10.1 oz
Balance: 32.5 cm / 5 pts HL
Beam: 24 mm
String pattern: 16×20
Stiffness: 68 RA

How do they play?

The Gravity line is made for baseline players who want more control than your average tweener, but more forgivness than a Prestige or Pro Staff racquet. The sweet spot is bigger with the Gravity line of racquets and that the tear drop shape and 100 sq inch head size helps stability and plow-through. I have heard many advanced level players that have found a fitting partner in the Gravity Pro since it is controlled, but despite a relatively maneuverable weight, offers impressive plow-through.

That’s one reason I like the Pro the best, but I tend to be a sucker for the thin beam of racquets like the Prestige.

The Gravity Tour is easier to use, offers more free power and a whippier response, but is not quite as controlled and “pancaking” of the ball as the Pro. Players with more top spin-inspired strokes will prefer the Tour or MP, but the trajectory with all Gravity racquets except the S, is pretty low. This line is more geared towards players that like a lower margin over the net.

The MP and the Tour offers plenty of room for customization, while the Pro is ready to be used by NTRP 4.5 and upwards without any tinkering. The Pro can be a lot to handle with swing weights going from 330 up to 340+ depending on your string choice.

If you’re interested, we can go through each model and its pros and cons in an upcoming review series. Or at least compare them to other racquets. If you’re interested in any specific comparisons, please comment below!

You may also like

13 comments

Lucas February 17, 2021 - 10:41 pm

Hi Jonas, try adding some weight on the Pro model at the racket grip. It will change the balance (aim at 31.5), this will make it easier to swing and will not add practically any SW.

Take care & as always remember to play some tennis.

Reply
TN February 18, 2021 - 11:38 am

Hi Lucas,

Yes, I don’t mind the balance on the Gravity Pro – it’s information geared towards other players mainly.

Reply
Katie February 18, 2021 - 12:11 am

Hi Jonas

Please could you compare the Head Gravity range with the Dunlop CX range?
I am a doubles player and full time coach!

Many Thanks

Katie

Reply
TN February 18, 2021 - 11:37 am

Hi Katie, they are both control-oriented racquets – the CX 200 and the Gravity Tour offer similar amounts of power/control. The CX 200 Tour is more comparable to the Gravity Pro – but the CX 200 Tour needs weight added. The CX 400 Tour is more similar in power to the Gravity S and will give you a good amount of power and spin for free. Both the CX line and the HEAD Gravity are good series of a racquets for players looking for control. I hope this helps.

Reply
Haiming February 18, 2021 - 12:17 am

hi, thanks for the good reviews. I bought the gravity pro, mainly for the control. During the testing period I was winning marches more easily that with other racquets. After buying the racquet, I struggled with many strings, as the it was feeling like a board, vey stiff, and lacking spin potential. Coming from a 16×18 racquet, the change was a bit difficult. I like to add loads of top spin, but with such low power racquet, getting enough top spin and ball speed requires such arm speed that my tendons begun to hurt. Knowing that 18×20 Pattern don’t use the strings up as quickly as the 16×18, I tried the polyfibre venom, gauge 20 (1.15). The result is excellent. Powerful serve with a fluid movement. From the base line, incredible spin, the ball bouncing very high. Control is still good so that volleys are precise. I can play around 6 hours before breaking, which is average for me. I wanted to share my experience, and asking you if you had similar experience with the gravity pro, and if you knew other string also offering a good combination with this racquet.

Reply
Haiming February 18, 2021 - 12:19 am

Please note that the gravity pro beam is 20mm, not 22mm.

Reply
TN February 18, 2021 - 11:35 am

Yes, thanks. Fixed it.

Reply
Anthony February 18, 2021 - 12:38 pm

Hi Jonas, thanks for revisiting the Gravity line. In your opinion does a TF40 305 play more like the Tour than Pro given beam width? I’m also assuming they’re comparable sticks. Keep up the great work.

Reply
Manie Meyer February 18, 2021 - 10:16 pm

I tested the TF 40 305 and CX 200 after my initial hit with the Gravity Pro. Still went with the Gravity Pro, for exactly the reasons Jonas mentioned, the control is superb and it is so stable through impact. Massive pancakes! ?
TF40 is great but the balance is rather different, also more muted and can be a little more erratic off the stringbed. It’s closer to the BB Pure Strike V3 than the Gravity Pro IMO.

Reply
ManieM February 18, 2021 - 10:19 pm

I tried weighting up the handle, but even with 9g it didn’t make enough of a difference in terms of maneuverability for me, and pushing further towards 360g static weight gets a bit heavy for me and most rec players.

Reply
Katie February 19, 2021 - 8:06 am

Thank you very much for all your help Jonas.
Your racket reviews are excellent.
Would be great if you could do an article on doubles rackets?

Reply
Anthony February 19, 2021 - 9:18 am

Thanks Manie, impressive if Pro’s control trumps that of the TF40. I will demo it and the Tour.

Reply
Kris February 23, 2021 - 5:13 pm

Looks like your GPro and GTour are quite a bit off-spec balance wise. The GPro is not headlight enough, hence the higher than expected swingweight. In contrast, the GTour is too headlight, with a correspondingly low swingweight.

Reply

Leave a Comment