In action, I encountered something of a Jekyll and Hyde aspect to the response of the Ultra. There were times when I really felt the bending and flex in the frame, which brought a greater sense of ball connection and pocketing. It was a definite improvement from the previous generation in terms of feel and comfort. Other times, however, it still lived up to its high stiffness rating, and felt fairly rigid at contact. Played alongside a softer frame, my wrist could tell the difference. So, while softer and certainly a step up in this department, it probably fell short of earning an arm-friendly label like that of the Clash.
But producing a powerful ball—not cushiness—has been this frame’s directive, and this latest was no slouch. As the specs were outside my wheelhouse, initially I was consistently inconsistent. Lots of winners, lots of errors. The racquet’s quickness disrupted my timing, but once I got settled and made a couple of adjustments to my approach, I developed a fine working relationship with the racquet. And ultimately the design changes led to a more controllable and predictable hitting experience than the outgoing model.
Besides, the Ultra’s main audience generally looks for additional help from their racquet’s, and generally use shorter, more tempered swings. Those players who really go after the ball can tap into the frame’s spin potential for more safety. And the wide spacing on the 16x19 string pattern was a capable conduit. Rolling angles and looping forehands worked reliably well. The Ultra also produced chips and slices with ease. They didn’t necessarily have the dirty low skids of a heavier frame, but it was a dependable option for getting shots deep in the court and became my favored backhand during the test.