Many of us, (including me), have tried to compare the top rackets from certain companies with a similar racket to another. For example, a Wilson K brave to a Yonex Muscle power 99. However, I see a problem in this - when we compare two rackets from different companies, we often assume that we should compare the top of the line rackets from each. In the above example, the kbrave is roughly $130 USD and the MP99 is about $180 USD. That $50 is rarely considered in comparison; we usually immediately think that just because the kbrave is the top even balanced racket for Wilson, it should match up against the Yonex counterpart. This has also lead to some hypocrisies - during comparison, some may claim that the kbrave is better because it is "cheaper." When comparing rackets, price should not - ABSOLUTELY should not - be used to determine which is better - if one has the money to purchase the best racket, they should just buy it - in this case, the MP99 by a long shot. Assuming that one racket is just as good as Yonex because it is the pride of the company is unreasonable and flat out wrong. That said, price does not determine how good a racket is - no matter how intuitive that sounds, it is often forgotten by people with lots of money to spare, and the materialistic desires to keep on buying more rackets (like me, sadly). We should rank rackets based on performance rather than bang for the buck, in order to let the actual consumer decide for themselves. So the moral of this forum topic is how to compare two different rackets with Yonex? The answer: compare that racket with its yonex counterpart of equal value and go from there. If it's better than the yonex racket, then it's a pretty nice racket. Thanks for reading! Kirbosmash
IMO, your post often relates to people who do not have much of a racket background. beginners often assume that price determines performance ( i totally agree with your price vs racket issue). However, people who know what they are looking for ( ie. stiffness, balances, etc) will compare those characteristics with another racket that is of interest to them. Personally, there is a problem with your answer. We cannot rank rackets on performance because performance is subjective, meaning it varies from one person to another. One person maybe be more fit and toned ( muscles or body) to weild racket X but another person may find racket X too heavy. For me, when i want to try another brand, i simply do some research and determine if that rackets specifications match my own preferences. So my answer would be: Compare rackets for quality and specifications to determine what is best for you. ( This would require a little more time and research if you're really unsure)
I disagree, racket preferance is a personal thing. Yonex is a great brand, but i will always compare top of the line of each brand. In my case i use yonex, black knight, and forza, all interchangeably, some don't have a yonex counterpart. Rackets should be compared racket-to-racket, not brand-to-brand.
Exactly, though I think you misunderstood me. I did not intend to say that Yonex is the best - I was comparing the MP 99 to the kbrave. Trying out the rackets is always the best way to determine if it's the right buy - when I say performance this is what i mean. Then next, other player's reviews - as you said, newcomers may have to resort to this. I am trying to say not to discriminate against Yonex for being Yonex - like how Americans discriminate against the Yankees for being rich - but to rather base it on performance. Performance = personal experience and reviews, and other's feedback.
agreed, mostly... Money does play a part in it. albiet a bit smaller, but not entirely unneeded. Would you spend 300 dollars on a racket that gave you top lreformance, or 120 on one that gave you 98%( if we actually measure it with oercentages)? Seeing as preformance is entirely subjective, that should play a part. I deliberately set spending limits on my own racket, even though i can play a lot better with an ARC10.
I think price is definitely a factor, that's why there's a price/performance ratio ! If performance is the all consuming factor, does this mean that I will pay $1000 for a racquet that is the best in the world ? What about a $200 racquet that performs to 98% of the $1000 racquet ? Does the additional 2% justify the $800 premium ? So you see, that's alot of factors that a potential buyer will need to ask himself and unless price is not an issue (I doubt so) then performance is all we care.
teoky, there aren't $1000 racket realistically speaking, racket price differences, between alike counterparts, "only" range by about a $50 change, as opposed to your $800 premium as stated. Is this inflation? Or is Yonex really better? I wonder if Yonex's mid-range rackets, stated at the same price as another brand's top rackets, compare equally or favorably to them. for example, as jymbalaya has recently recommended to me, the AT600. (Armortec 600). This racket is $170, but still less in "#" than the Armortec 900 power and less in money than that. Should I view this as worse? NO! Upon research I found that the specs were different, that unlike the AT900P, it was medium stiff, meaning it should flex a bit. This, in that regards, is hence a different racket, buried under Yonex's confusing numbering system. 1. Yonex should not be discriminated because it has so many racket lines: upon further research, its mid range rackets are very nice. 2. We still like to have the top racket, so the top racket of a cheaper company is more appealing. I guess its up to the consumer. To me - whichever racket is cooler - the paint job makes my day
