DinkALot's Racket Review

[cooler]

All reviews are biased of course. Dan is probably going to say something about how its all relative to other rackets and of course his playing style, maybe something about other stuff like oval or iso who knows? What i do know is and dan will agree this review is not definite/ultimate. Dan right now likes to use heavy rackets, so naturally a lot of his choices will be more 2U or 3U than 4U, and also stiff and head heavy. None the less many pro's and advanced players use the same type of head heavy and stiff racket. Just cause Dan says its a great or excellent racket doesnt mean it'll work for everyone. You also have to consider dan has made revisions. I havent seen enough revisions to see rackets pulled down from great or whtever to good or not good, but this review is also (somewhat) time sensitive. For all we know in 15 years all these rackets might be trash (probably not tho) My point here is its relative to playing style, and whats available. For me I look at the chart, see what racket i use, and find something with similar properties or characteristics and go from there.

I found the woven 7 was too heavy so i went for a more balanced racket, and voila the woven 8 was a perfect choice, much more control, harder smashes, just awesome, pw12 was also fun to hit with, seemed to be feelin the sotx line tho.

Then again, thanks to dink for a great in depth review of so many top of the line rackets. A great reference for any player.

Great post Elliot! You saved me some time.

Positive KARMA for you!

Agree but according to Cooler's "scientific" analysis, the new one is much stiffer. Go figure.

At least my scientific methodolgy mean it's unbias and i dont need to make revision U have the rights and opportunity to prove me wrong, scientifically. A subjective feel that contradicts science doesnt prove the science is wrong. From above posts, u have already acknowledged that your 'review is not definite/ultimate'. U can't claim holy correctness when yourself declared not definitely certain. I'm not trying to start a controversial debate. I'm only quoting here Go figure? My figures were done already

[Pete LSD]

Let me lend a hand here. I have owned enough Ti-10s new and old version to know the ins and outs. Overall, the old version is stiffer.

[DinkAlot]

Unless I got a defective, new Ti10 to test, your "scientific" instruments are flawed and/or biased.

Science cannot be unbiased unless you prove your methodology. You haven't, you just claimed it's scientific. I'm not doubting your methods nor approving them, I would just like to know what they are. So please post your methodology, thanks.

Also, please give us your detalied findings between the two rackets, I'd like to see them; or link me to where you posted it, thanks.

For me, revisions are necessary because times change and what we know changes. Remember Columbus? Newton? When I test things, it's at that time. Later, maybe a new benchmark comes out or I have a defective racket or some other variable. If that's the case I will certainly revise or update my findings.

Finally, please do not put words in my mouth nor make me out for something I am not. I never claimed to be 100% correct or holy or whatever you are saying. Please just stop with that.

You claim you made a scientific finding, I'm asking you to please prove it because again, the new Ti10 I tried (informally) was not as stiff as as the old one.

I look forward to your scientific analysis as I like learning new things, thank you.

At least my scientific methodolgy mean it's unbias and i dont need to make revision U have the rights and opportunity to prove me wrong, scientifically. A subjective feel that contradicts science doesnt prove the science is wrong. From above posts, u have already acknowledged that your 'review is not definite/ultimate'. U can't claim holy correctness when yourself declared not definitely certain. I'm not trying to start a controversial debate. I'm only quoting here Go figure? My figures were done already

[DinkAlot]

Let me lend a hand here. I have owned enough Ti-10s new and old version to know the ins and outs. Overall, the old version is stiffer.

Sir, please check your e-mail about the string.

Also, let's wait for Paul's scientific analysis.

[cooler]

Also, let's wait for Paul's scientific analysis.

nah, it would be as futile as galileo trying to convince the masses that the earth is round, not flat as pancake. Maybe it is good to leave a bit of mystery behind with the new vs old ti-10 debate, to keep ti-10 popularity alive

[DinkAlot]

nah, it would be as futile as galileo trying to convince the masses that the earth is round, not flat as pancake. Maybe it is good to leave a bit of mystery behind with the new vs old ti-10 debate, to keep ti-10 popularity alive

Maybe you realized your mistake and are trying to back peddle.

You know I'm just trying to get you to reveal your info. If not for the panda, do it for the bamboooooo!

[AJSAXIN]

Well I took dinkalots review on the racquets and upgraded to a d600 from the at500 and at 300 and I loved it ..End of the day u look at the review as just a good refrence source and choose a racquets among the good oens there dpeending on ur playing style and prefrences.

The review is not the ultimate and 100% right and as a matte rof fact no review is as the reviewers prefrences is bound to show up a little bit but it deifntelty is very veyr use ..way to go dink.

Thnaks

[jerby]

At least my scientific methodolgy mean it's unbias and i dont need to make revision

How does science nót revise itself? In my book, it's the greatest part about science: it can "change its mind"

U have the rights and opportunity to prove me wrong, scientifically. A subjective feel that contradicts science doesnt prove the science is wrong.

missing premise: my experiment is a scientific fact...

From above posts, u have already acknowledged that your 'review is not definite/ultimate'. U can't claim holy correctness when yourself declared not definitely certain. I'm not trying to start a controversial debate. I'm only quoting here Go figure? My figures were done already

speaking of holy correctness, science, revisions...How about a nice peer-to-peer review of your scientific method?

[cooler]

How does science nót revise itself? In my book, it's the greatest part about science: it can "change its mind"

missing premise: my experiment is a scientific fact...

speaking of holy correctness, science, revisions...How about a nice peer-to-peer review of your scientific method?

by science i dont mean nuclear science tough or using nasa type equipments to judge stiffness. It mean it was measured with known and accepted devices and standard like kg and cm with with unbiased judgement versus subjective feel which can depends on alot of external influences like which side of bed panda got up that day or how potent he feel that day

Yes, science can be contradicted or corrected or improved but preferrably by another sciencifically based theory or methodology.

Stiffness is a human term which linguistically serve us well under normal circumstances like comparing noodles to a bamboo stick. However, when comparing stiffness at a narrower range, it can fail as we all sometime disagree to yonex's assigned stiffness to each racket models, as well as how members here disagree about stiffness of AT700 or other rackets.

My method is simple and based on well known convention, the SI system.
I bend the racket with known weight (g, kg,) and measured with standardized measuring devices that record deflection in mm, cm etc. There shouldnt be any unknown process introduced in this type of experiement. Yes, i assumed gravitation constant remaining constant between the time i tested the new and old ti10

[DinkAlot]

like which side of bed panda got up that day or how potent he feel that day

it can fail as we all sometime disagree yonex's assign stiffness to each racket models, as well as how members here disagree about stiffness of AT700 or other rackets.

Panda always wakes up on the left side of the bed. The bed is in the corner.

The AT700 is...stiff enough.

[godlyatheist]

how come i can't see the review anymore? used to be able to...

[south_fan]

hi DinkAlot would be reviewing any tactic rackets?

[DinkAlot]

how come i can't see the review anymore? used to be able to...

It's still here.

[matt5169]

Sir Dink, will there be an update with other rackets ?

I'm so impatient to read a review on models such as Yonex Ti-10 or Victor Super Wave 32.

[Oldhand]

Panda always wakes up on the left side of the bed. The bed is in the corner.

A cornered animal is dangerous.

[alan06]

I plan to buy a woven 7, and from reading the review it's certainly assuring. Also, what tension can the racket hold up to? I normally go 24x26 with bg-80. Do you think this would generate impressive power?

[DinkAlot]

Power is generated by the wielder.

Do a search, Woven rackets are generally guaranteed up to 30lbs.