Curiosity Series 701 — Mizuno FORTIUS 33 QUICK

Karry September 20, 2024 1 0

This series has flagship and sub-flagship models, and I’ve tried most of them, except for the “troublemaker” 10Q. To be honest, it was quite a challenge for me. It’s probably the hardest-to-handle attacking racket among the newer generation of rackets from Mizuno’s premium lines. Reflecting on Hendra Setiawan’s performance at the Basel World Championships, his physical condition was actually quite decent at that time, but his decline has been evident in recent years.

For players who love the short-shaft Fortius but can’t generate enough power, is there a better alternative? That’s when the 33 caught my attention.

Specs: 4UG5, towel grip, total weight 92g, balance point 305mm, shaft length 210mm, stiff, box frame, 76 grommets, full string groove, tension warranty of 27 lbs, strung at 25–27 lbs with BG80.
The carbon black, matte finish, and gold accents give it a high-end look, similar to the previously released 7C. However, since I’ve already used the 10 Power, the only change with this twin version is the color, which didn’t surprise me much.

On the other hand, the 33 Quick has much more to offer. Even though it’s positioned as a mid-high-end racket compared to the 10 Quick, which is a tier above, there was no compromise on its appearance. The details and stickers are all present, and the dark purple accent on the stickers gives it a menacing “venomous” look.
However, Mizuno’s paint is notoriously fragile, and any imperfections, whether it’s mid or high-end, will definitely hurt your heart.

Interestingly, both rackets have the same balance point and similar weights, which makes parallel testing easier for me.
Despite the similar specs, the moment I picked them up, I could feel that the 10 Quick was significantly heavier and stiffer. Without exaggeration, although the racket’s weight helps deliver power and depth during long rallies, for me, the 10 Quick felt too slow to use.

Looking at the 33 Quick, although it also leans toward a head-heavy attacking racket, its weight distribution isn’t as extreme. It still provides good leverage when handling incoming shots, but the shaft flex is more noticeable, making it easier to generate power and elasticity. I know the carbon fiber quality of the 33 is lower than the 10, but if the material’s elasticity can’t be expressed, then even the best material is just a stick.
Of course, I’m not a top player, but I prefer to use a racket that I can actually control.

I believe the brutality of the FT10Q is on par with the first generation Longya (Dragon Fang). It’s aggressive and heavy, and it’s hard to believe that it was once wielded by a front-court doubles player. In most competitive situations, its sheer power and presence are overwhelming, even borderline excessive. The short and stiff shaft makes its attack potential extremely high, but it also demands an absurd level of strength and technique. At least with the first-generation Longya, the WES technology helped lower the threshold for shaft flex, but the 10 Quick has no such assistance, purely relying on power and technique.

That’s why I struggled with the 10Q, unable to drive it effectively. My swing preparation and follow-through felt slow, and my power timing was hard to control. In doubles, I was often dragged down by the racket’s heavy body. Once I got stuck in this dilemma, nothing felt right. On court, I spent a lot of time worrying about how to generate power, making my shots more rigid and awkward.
Even with my partner setting up shots for me, I still felt held back by its high usage threshold when attacking from the backcourt. Sure, I could still produce decent pressure without fully powering up, but my inability to deliver a satisfying smash left me frustrated.

Let’s not even talk about flat drives or defensive plays. I admit the racket has a high ceiling, but we’re just not compatible—time to call it quits.
Just because something is good doesn’t mean it’s right for you, and the 33 Quick taught me that lesson.

From a configuration standpoint, BFS, Aero Groove, and the full string groove are all retained, the frame size is comparable, and the forgiveness is similar. The stiffness is marked slightly lower than the 11Q but still on the stiffer side, making it essentially a vertical product in the 11Q family. Although the higher price of this mid-high-end racket might limit its appeal, its playability is high, and it feels like a step above the previous FT50.

By controlling the stiffness, the 33 Quick is much easier to handle than the 10 Quick. You can clearly feel the shaft flex and rebound when applying force, and although the feedback is still direct, the racket provides a lot more satisfaction. At least when attacking from the backcourt, the 10Q made me constantly worry about “how to activate the racket,” while with the 33Q, I was thinking about “where to place my attack,” which obviously suits mid-level players better.

What’s remarkable is that the reduction in material quality didn’t result in a loss of elasticity. Even without Mfusion, the 33 Quick remains very bouncy. And the frame hasn’t been compromised either, providing clear control over long shots and excellent torsional resistance.

This ensures the racket has a solid baseline. Although the swing weight is still high, making flat drives and defensive maneuvers a bit challenging, the racket’s elasticity helps compensate for poor shot quality due to difficulty in generating power.

The same control and similar downward pressure, with a more user-friendly difficulty level, make the 33Q more appealing. Although it’s still heavy and doesn’t have the ceiling of the 10, considering the price difference and its excellent appearance, there’s no reason not to give it a try. However, because of the price, it’s not easy to find this racket in circulation, which is a common issue with Mizuno products.