User Tag List

Page 28 of 59 FirstFirst ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 ... LastLast
Results 460 to 476 of 987
  1. #460
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    720
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yan.v View Post
    You guys seem to hate this racket at such a point that you think no one should use it.

    Keep in mind that something that doesn't work for you might work for others. The lighter weight does decrease your power. No one can deny that. However, it also increases your swing speed, which translates into some power.
    I think you're absolutely right about that. I think the problem for most people is that they buy into the notion that if one racket works for someone, then it's going to work for him/her. The reality is that most people won't be able to take advantage of a racket like the VT-ZF. Most people forget that players like LCW or LD are pros and have mastered the proper techniques.

    The problem here is that it's hard to find the ideal racket on the first try. Ideally one should try a variety of rackets with strings strung at different tensions to get an idea of what will suit them. Unfortunately this does cost a bit of money.

    Now I'm not claiming that this racket is more powerful than a VT-ZF, or that it's the best racket ever and that everyone should use it. But for me, and many others, it was powerful enough to justify making the trade off of a little power to much more maneuverability. I get much more power from that racket than many 3U rackets.

    Keep in mind that we don't know exactly how everything works in regards of rackets vs power vs control, etc. So you can try to justify with weight/flex/wt/etc being incorrect, but as long as you don't know the complete equation, it'll never be accurate.

    Also, saying that pros are losing because of the racket is pretty mindless... If they didn't like the racket, they'd use another one. If Yonex wouldn't allow them to use another one (I'm pretty sure that'd be the dumbest move ever), they'd do like usual and play with repaints.
    I agree with you. It doesn't do Yonex any favour if their sponsored players loses a match.

  2. #461
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    720
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by j4ckie View Post
    There just is a limit to the speed with which you can swing your arm and racket, and the lower the weight, the closer you get to that limit or even cross the line, so to speak. The lighter the racket, the less strength you use to swing it, but it also has a smaller momentum. If it's not pretty stiff and you're not gripping it very tightly at the point of impact, it won't accelerate the shuttle as much as a heavier racket because of that low momentum.
    Looking at the trend, people have stopped going lighter and lighter. Since ~2003, 2004 rackets have stopped getting lighter despite it being possible. Many players use heavy 3U rackets, some with very high balance points - especially in singles. Lighter rackets are available, but don't seem to offer enough advantages to outweight their weaknesses for those players....why else did LCW go heavier and heavier over the years? Why didn't LD go for a lighter racket?
    With the shuttle speed remaining constant, there's definitely a limit to what weight is practical. If the shuttles were to be made faster, lighter rackets would be very useful, but with the shuttles staying the same weight(s) and not getting faster there's pretty few advantages to such low weights.
    You'll definitely improve in the fast, finger-based swings, but can't utilize your arm as well, as the speed you swing your arm with actually won't improve as noticeably. So while your defensive reactions might be quicker, you'll lose penetration when on the offensive. Badminton being the offensive sport it is today, is that trade-off really worth it? According to Mogensen's play, no.
    Keep in mind that I don't cite the results as a reason - just the penetration from the back. For all we know BoMo would've performed just the same with their old rackets. But I'm fairly certain Mogensen's attack has lost some of its bite (yeah, he doesn't smash all-out all the time - but when he does, it's not nearly as devastating as it used to be).
    90+% of people out there aren't LCW or LD! If going heavier is better, why aren't you using a 2U racket then?

  3. #462
    Regular Member j4ckie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,848
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt_Strider View Post
    90+% of people out there aren't LCW or LD! If going heavier is better, why aren't you using a 2U racket then?
    Are you intentionally dense? I didn't say "heavier is better". I said there's a limit to what weight is useful - that's actually true in both directions. There's of course a range as not all athletes are the same and not everyone has the same technique.
    For guys like LCW and LD, head weight is important - clears get easier, smashes have more power (in their case), the racket swings more stable - all helpful aspects in singles. They have the strength and technique to make it work in defense and quick exchanges as well, which less skilled players or pros with a different style might not be able to.
    Others will prefer lighter rackets as the Arcsaber 10 for singles as it's lighter weight allows for more deceptive net play and better defense...

    I didn't say everyone should go for heavy rackets. I, for example, have been using the Bs09/12 for the past season. It's on the light spectrum, sure, but it suited my needs. Still it's well into 3U territory, and not head light, so it's a powerhouse compared to the Arc FB.

    I'm also not saying that no one should use the Arc FB. I'm saying an advanced competition player will definitely play better with other rackets.


    I had a lot of fun playing with the FB, actually. It's really great what you can do with it defensively and in terms of deception, and in recreational doubles it's a delight. I get only limited use out of it in serious training though as it cripples my attacking game from the back. Front court play and defense are (mostly) enhanced, but once I'm at the back, the attack is pretty much lost as I have to play a clear after a couple weak smashes (to avoid my opponents counter-attacking the smash as they creep forward in their defensive position).

  4. #463
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    951
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by j4ckie View Post
    I'm also not saying that no one should use the Arc FB. I'm saying an advanced competition player will definitely play better with other rackets.

    It's really great what you can do with it defensively and in terms of deception, and in recreational doubles it's a delight. I get only limited use out of it in serious training though as it cripples my attacking game from the back.
    I think this is what most people don't agree with. You're pretty much saying "You're a bad player (recreational player) if you prefer this racket" or "If you're good, this racket can't be for you".

    I'm an advanced player and I like the racket a lot. I also know some really good players (top regional players/national players) that like the racket better than any other rackets they have tried in the current lines.

    I think you'd make it easier for other people to agree with you if you removed the "only bad players like this racket"* parts. Some advanced players can definitely prefer this racket over everything else.

    *I know that's not exactly what you said and probably not what you think, but that's what it comes across as.

  5. #464
    Regular Member j4ckie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,848
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Haha, yeah - let me try to rephrase that
    I think that while some advanced players might like this racket the best, prefer it to any other model out there, objectively they play a bit worse. For me, there's a similar problem - I like my strings tighter than I play the best with. I like the feeling, the sharp impact, and the control - but objectively I play better with 1-2lbs softer strings than I usually train with.

    As I said, I liked the racket as well, and I'm not a bad player, but for me it was pretty clear I wasn't at my best with it. For others, the difference might be much smaller, but I'm convinced it's still there

    I sometimes play with a lighter, tighter strung racket than my Bs09. In some matches, I think there's actually very little difference in power, and then a couple rallies later, I can't get through or eventually get countered in situations I would've made the point with my Bs09....that is usually my somewhat objective indication I'm worse in that aspect. Same when I'm playing with a heavier racket and suddenly don't get back shots I normally would've whipped crosscourt.

    PS: #462 should've said "...being intentionally..."
    Last edited by j4ckie; 05-05-2013 at 06:45 PM.

  6. #465
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The initial feeling of the light FB rackets do bring extra joy, mainly because it is unique, but from the All England 2013 MD results, there is reasons why MD players switch away from the FB.
    For what ever reason i dont know,

    P.S. lots of broken FB rackets images in the BC

  7. #466
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Brunei Darussalam
    Posts
    1,713
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    could the reason be mailny for marketing purpose

  8. #467
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    720
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by j4ckie View Post
    Are you intentionally dense? I didn't say "heavier is better". I said there's a limit to what weight is useful - that's actually true in both directions. There's of course a range as not all athletes are the same and not everyone has the same technique.
    For guys like LCW and LD, head weight is important - clears get easier, smashes have more power (in their case), the racket swings more stable - all helpful aspects in singles. They have the strength and technique to make it work in defense and quick exchanges as well, which less skilled players or pros with a different style might not be able to.
    Others will prefer lighter rackets as the Arcsaber 10 for singles as it's lighter weight allows for more deceptive net play and better defense...

    I didn't say everyone should go for heavy rackets. I, for example, have been using the Bs09/12 for the past season. It's on the light spectrum, sure, but it suited my needs. Still it's well into 3U territory, and not head light, so it's a powerhouse compared to the Arc FB.

    I'm also not saying that no one should use the Arc FB. I'm saying an advanced competition player will definitely play better with other rackets.


    I had a lot of fun playing with the FB, actually. It's really great what you can do with it defensively and in terms of deception, and in recreational doubles it's a delight. I get only limited use out of it in serious training though as it cripples my attacking game from the back. Front court play and defense are (mostly) enhanced, but once I'm at the back, the attack is pretty much lost as I have to play a clear after a couple weak smashes (to avoid my opponents counter-attacking the smash as they creep forward in their defensive position).
    That was indeed what you were implying. I would encourage anyone to read those bold comments and come to their own conclusions.

  9. #468
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    720
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by j4ckie View Post
    Ya what you said is that you didn't feel fine after playing 2 hours before, which is indeed not the same as being unable to play 2 hours. Otoh saying you're not fine after playing means (to me) that you're not only tired (which is normal), but hurting in some way. If playing 2 hours with a normal racket hurts you, you need to up your conditioning.
    I think I could play longer than usual with the ArcFB as well, seeing as it really takes next to no effort to swing around, but it really isn't worth the downsides - lacking any real power overhead and having to concentrate on every single clear to avoid hitting it short. I think it's a fun recreational racket, but has no use in serious competition.
    Mogensen's recent lack of penetration from the back seems to undermine that opinion, while Ahsan had the sense to switch back to his previous racket. Really surprising though how well RI seems to play with it - but perhaps for her less offensive game, its attacking capabilities are sufficient. Don't really think it's some other repainted racket, as she could just as well use the Arc11 if she wants to promote a new racket - which would be only a small change from her Arc10. Anyhow, let's see if there's gonna be another player apart from her who can actually succeed with the FB - I doubt it.
    I should have described things better. I was not in pain after 2 hours of constant badminton. Can I play 3 hours with the Arc FB? I think so. I wouldn't be able to do that with my AT800 DE. That's for sure. My legs were probably more tired than the other parts of my body.

  10. #469
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    720
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I spent another 1.5 hours playing with the FB today. I stand by what I had said earlier about the FB. It's a good racket, but the weaknesses as mentioned before in this thread still stands. This definitely isn't the perfect racket so let's get that out of the way. None is. As stated before, this racket really shine in the front to mid-court areas. I don't doubt that. In fact, I dominated in the front to mid-court areas today.

    I still think I can squeeze a bit more performance out of this racket. As stated before, this FB isn't mine. I'm going to buy one later this week and will post more impressions of it later.

  11. #470
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    10,120
    Mentioned
    136 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt_Strider View Post
    That was indeed what you were implying. I would encourage anyone to read those bold comments and come to their own conclusions.
    He was saying that heavier is better for attack and especially singles, giving LD and LCW as examples. And that there is a certain range of swing wts where you or I can swing a racket fast enough with still enough mass (momentum) to hit a bird with any meaningful impact. We all agree that FB and ZF currently represent the extremes of swing wts in the Yonex world, so yes, you're right, it is up to us to find the range of swing wt that fits our style and abilities. After going thru about 18 rackets in the past 3 years, I can say that I may have finally found my range and preference.
    Last edited by visor; 05-06-2013 at 03:16 AM.

  12. #471
    Regular Member kumache's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    He was saying that heavier is better for attack and especially singles, giving LD and LCW as examples. And that there is a certain range of swing wts where you or I can swing a racket fast enough with still enough mass (momentum) to hit a bird with any meaningful impact. We all agree that FB and ZF currently represent the extremes of swing wts in the Yonex world, so yes, you're right, it is up to us to find the range of swing wt that fits our style and abilities. After going thru about 18 rackets in the past 3 years, I can say that I may have finally found my range and preference.
    Now Ratchanok Inthanon is using AFB, how about that? only cause she's a girl?

  13. #472
    Regular Member visor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    10,120
    Mentioned
    136 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kumache View Post
    Now Ratchanok Inthanon is using AFB, how about that? only cause she's a girl?
    Yep, I've been following her play over the past few tournaments ... she gets a lot of power out of the FB. Perhaps she has the 5u jp version, or even possibly special 4u version?

  14. #473
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    720
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visor View Post
    Yep, I've been following her play over the past few tournaments ... she gets a lot of power out of the FB. Perhaps she has the 5u jp version, or even possibly special 4u version?
    I'm still thinking about whether to go ahead and get that from SH. I was hoping Matt would provide some detailed impressions of the 5U FB given that he have used the 6U, but it seems like he's been busy lately. My plans have kind of changed now that MBS have the Duoforce in stock. I'm going to call them later today to get some more clarifications on shipping and insurance. If all goes well, I'll play an order before the end of today.

  15. #474
    Regular Member j4ckie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,848
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt_Strider View Post
    That was indeed what you were implying. I would encourage anyone to read those bold comments and come to their own conclusions.
    It's not I said LCW went heavier over the years, first I've seen of him is with the NS9000, then he changed to the AT900P, VT80, VTZF.
    Nowhere did I state that everyone should go for the heaviest racket available. For both LCW and LD, heavy & head heavy rackets work out the best. Chen Long, for example, plays a less head heavy racket but enjoys a lot of success with that. My opinion has always been that there is a limited range of weight (or rather, swing weight) that is still useful for badminton. An individual player's preferred range is much narrower than that, I don't think I'm using the "ideal racket" or such nonsense.


    Reading in excerpts is the best way to get a warped view of the intended message. Read my comments in full or don't reply to them, pls.

  16. #475
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    76
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As a end user of 2 FBs, allow me my cents worth. I have played 2 months with the FB as my primary racket, and to a certain extent, I kinda agree that smashes are not as effective...I think I have kind of gotten used to the FB, and since smashes are not my primary playing style, I think it is a good trade off in return for controlled play and defense.

    However, I must admit that the racket is pretty frail...cuz I broke my FB for the second time due to a mishit..the frame cracked at the 11oclock position...quite similar to the previous breakage. String was bg66um strung at 24lbs...gonna make a trip down to queensway tomorrow, fingers crossed that the warranty claim will be fuss free...

  17. #476
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    821
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Does anyone have a comparison of the FB and the Victor Light Fighter 7400?
    The Victor is heavier, but possibly the closest competitor from Victor?

Page 28 of 59 FirstFirst ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •