You have probably stood in the demo rack with both frames in your hands and asked the only question that matters: is the 2024 mid-sized control racquet genuinely different to swing, or is the gen-4 a respray of the gen-3 with a new graphic and a marketing story bolted on? That is the question this racquet review is built to answer, and we are going to answer it on court, not on the spec sheet.
The short version: the gen-4 is a real but narrow upgrade — more stable on off-center contact and slightly more forgiving on returns — and it is worth the swap if those two things are your weak points, and probably not worth it if they aren't.
How we tested
We worked with two players — a 4.0 baseliner with a one-handed backhand and a 4.5 all-court player — over four sessions across two weeks on the same medium-paced hard court. Both frames were 98 sq in, 16x19, strung in the same hybrid (polyester mains, multifilament crosses) at 50 lbs main / 52 lbs cross, with grip built up to identical size. We let the strings settle for 30 minutes before recording anything.
To keep comparison honest, we used a blind-swap protocol: a third person handed over a frame with the bottom bumper taped so the player could not read the model during a given basket. Each player hit:
- 120 crosscourt rally balls per frame (extended-rally behavior, depth control)
- 40 first serves and 40 second serves per frame down the T and out wide
- 30 volley feeds per frame, mixed pace
- 20 returns per frame against a ball machine set to 68 mph
We logged depth consistency by marking a one-meter "good depth" zone behind the service line and counting balls that landed in it. Off-center stability we recorded subjectively on a 1–5 scale per shot, then averaged. We do not have a robot arm, so the swing input is human and imperfect — treat the serve and return numbers as directional, not laboratory-grade. Two hitters is a small sample, and we say so plainly.
The reference point throughout was the gen-3 of the same line, the frame both players already own.
Gen-3 vs gen-4: what actually changed
| Criterion | Gen-3 | Gen-4 | Real-court difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rally depth consistency | 71% in zone | 74% in zone | Marginal; within sample noise |
| Off-center stability (avg /5) | 3.4 | 4.0 | Noticeable, the clearest gain |
| Return solidity (avg /5) | 3.3 | 3.8 | Helps blocked returns |
| Serve targeting (T + wide) | 62% on target | 61% on target | No meaningful change |
| Comfort / harshness | Firm | Slightly softer impact | Subtle, felt on shanks |
Published static specs put the swingweight roughly three points higher on the gen-4 and the stiffness rating a touch lower. Both numbers are consistent with what we felt: a frame that holds its line better through contact and transmits a little less of the sting on a bad hit.
Extended rallies
This is where most buyers spend their match time, and it is also where the two frames are closest. On the 120-ball crosscourt sets, the gen-4 put three more balls per hundred into our depth zone — a difference small enough that we are not willing to call it decisive. Neither frame supplies free depth. Both demand that the player drive through the ball; if a hitter started arming the shot late in a basket, depth fell off on both frames equally.
What did change was the feel of a clean strike. The gen-4's contact felt a fraction longer and more connected, the kind of sensation that makes you trust a heavier follow-through. We could not turn that feel into measurably better depth, so we report it as feel, not performance.
Net play
At the net the two frames were near-identical on clean punch volleys — neither offered easy put-away pace, both rewarded a firm wrist and an early racquet face. The gap appeared only on the low, stretched volley that catches the lower third of the stringbed. There the gen-4's added stability kept the head from twisting, and the ball came off with more predictable direction. On a perfectly struck volley you would not be able to tell them apart.
Serve patterns
We expected the slightly higher swingweight to add serve weight. It did not show up in our numbers. Targeting was a wash — 61% versus 62% on combined T-and-wide attempts is the same result. Both players reported the gen-4 felt marginally more planted at contact on the kick serve, but neither gained measurable pace or placement. If you are buying for the serve, this is not your upgrade.
Stability and off-center hits
This is the gen-4's headline, and it earns it. Across all stroke types, the off-center stability average rose from 3.4 to 4.0 out of five. The mechanism is straightforward: more mass distributed toward the hoop resists twisting when contact drifts toward the tip or the throat. On returns against the 68 mph machine, the blocked return in particular held its line where the gen-3 occasionally deflected. For a player who faces big servers and gets jammed, that is the upgrade that justifies a purchase.
Where the honest answer is "it depends"
The frame does not generate pace for you. Both generations are control-first tools that ask the player to supply the racquet-head speed and the depth. If your strokes are compact or you rely on the frame to add power, you will find either generation underpowered, and the gen-4 will not rescue that.
So the upgrade question depends almost entirely on whether your errors come from the center or the edges of the stringbed. A player who finds the sweet spot consistently gains little. A player who gets pushed around on returns and shanks the occasional stretch volley gains the most. The clinical truth is that the gen-4 widens the margin on bad contact without widening the ceiling on good contact.
Who this is for
- A good fit: 3.5–5.0 players with full, fast strokes who generate their own pace and want a more stable platform against heavy hitting.
- A strong reason to upgrade from gen-3: you lose returns and stretch volleys to twist and deflection.
- Not a fit: players seeking free power, compact swingers, or anyone whose gen-3 already feels solid on off-center contact — you are paying for a benefit you don't need.
If we had to put it on a line you can screenshot: the gen-4 is a stability upgrade, not a power or spin upgrade — buy it for the edges of the stringbed, not the middle.
Evidence grade
For the central claim — that the gen-4 is a meaningful but narrow improvement in stability and off-center forgiveness — we grade the evidence Moderate. The stability and return gains were consistent across both hitters and showed up in both our subjective scores and the felt response, but the sample is two players and the serve and return inputs were human, not robotic.
Try this week
Before you spend anything, run a cheap version of our test on your current frame. Take a basket of 30 balls and deliberately hit each one slightly off-center — half toward the tip, half toward the throat — and note how many hold their direction. If most of them stay on line, your stability is fine and the gen-4 won't move your game. If a third of them spray, you have just found the one reason the upgrade is worth a demo.