User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 18 to 22 of 22
  1. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^Yes, I've read a lot of threads about the arc7 and arc10. Many seem to prefer the arc7. As for smashes, it's not that I don't like to smash, it's that I don't seem to get good punch on them. So I opt for placement shots instead. The ability I would really like is to be able to clear from my baseline to opponents baseline when I'm under pressure and tired from the rally.

  2. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    124
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joedc View Post
    ^Yes, I've read a lot of threads about the arc7 and arc10. Many seem to prefer the arc7. As for smashes, it's not that I don't like to smash, it's that I don't seem to get good punch on them. So I opt for placement shots instead. The ability I would really like is to be able to clear from my baseline to opponents baseline when I'm under pressure and tired from the rally.
    Generally head heaviness will help with your clears and things like that. The head heaviness will assist in transfering energy through to the shuttle as there is more mass towards the head.

    Arc 7 is a fantastic technical racket but it won't do you any favours for power. If you want to fully concentrate on that technical game then the arc7 is a great choice.

    On the other hand if you would like to have the racket assist you with power at bit then head heaviness is something you will want. The thing is as you are a good techincal player you'll be good at the placement shots with most decent rackets. Would be on benefit to you if you counter balanced that quality.

    I guess my worry is that if you went the arc7 knowing already you were a bit weak on the power side then I don't think the racket will help you in any way.

    They are fantastic rackets the arcs but they seem to be for people with high levels of strength already.

  3. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    258
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by gumpy_999 View Post
    Generally head heaviness will help with your clears and things like that. The head heaviness will assist in transfering energy through to the shuttle as there is more mass towards the head.

    Arc 7 is a fantastic technical racket but it won't do you any favours for power. If you want to fully concentrate on that technical game then the arc7 is a great choice.

    On the other hand if you would like to have the racket assist you with power at bit then head heaviness is something you will want. The thing is as you are a good techincal player you'll be good at the placement shots with most decent rackets. Would be on benefit to you if you counter balanced that quality.

    I guess my worry is that if you went the arc7 knowing already you were a bit weak on the power side then I don't think the racket will help you in any way.

    They are fantastic rackets the arcs but they seem to be for people with high levels of strength already.
    Don't forget about stiff or not xD... They're also playing a lot of part for those. Please read more about the stiff explanation.
    Here

    For your concern,
    Arc7 -> Medium
    Arc10 -> Stiff

  4. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I play a lot of tennis and know the ins-and-outs of tennis racquets extremely well. In tennis, when comparing frames of equal weight and balance point, a more flexible frame offers less power (and stiffer frames give more power). In badminton, it appears that it is the reverse.

    That said, I am now looking at the AT700. The staff is extra stiff, however, it needs to be that way because it is a head heavy frame. If you think about the frame as flexible rope with a weight attached at the top, then the weight would obviously add to the flex during a swing. So the shaft needs to be stiffer as you add weight to the head. That is the way I am understanding it right now.

    Obviously I would love to demo but that is just not possible.

  5. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    124
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joedc View Post
    I play a lot of tennis and know the ins-and-outs of tennis racquets extremely well. In tennis, when comparing frames of equal weight and balance point, a more flexible frame offers less power (and stiffer frames give more power). In badminton, it appears that it is the reverse.

    That said, I am now looking at the AT700. The staff is extra stiff, however, it needs to be that way because it is a head heavy frame. If you think about the frame as flexible rope with a weight attached at the top, then the weight would obviously add to the flex during a swing. So the shaft needs to be stiffer as you add weight to the head. That is the way I am understanding it right now.

    Obviously I would love to demo but that is just not possible.
    Flexibility adding or taking away power depends on how much snap you can generate. People with a violent forearm rotation need the stiffer racket to get power. Reverse is the case for weaker swingers...

    AT700 is extra stiff, and it's not counteracted by the fact that it's very head heavy, it simply is very stiff and will not help you unless you have superb technique and strength.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

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
  •