Actually, if Dink convert the chart to numerical values, it would be quite accurate. Given that each attribute is out of 10, each member here would like to make a decision/comparison table can easily do it. ie First define how much you value each attribute from most important(10) and least important ie Your badminton style and values. for example, if you are on a budget you'll value durability high whereas you're more of a defensive player you'll value defense higher than power ***key point, do not assign too many redundant values (ex dont value power=10 and control=10 with everything else 9) Condition: Power=8 Defense=9 Control=6 Stiffness=7 Stability=5 Durability=10 Dink's Converted Charts example ABC Racket: Power=9 / Defense=7 / Control=8 / stiffness= 8.5 / Stability= 10 / Durability= 10 XYZ Racket: Power=10/ Defense=8 / Control 9 / Stiffness=9 / stability 6 / Durabilty=8 ***statistics would be similar between the two rackets Multiplication ABC Racket: Power=72 / Defense=63 / Control=48 / Stiffness= 59.5 / stability= 50 / Durability= 100 XYZ Racket: Power=80 / Defense=72 / Control=54 / Stiffness= 63 / Stability= 30 / Durability=80 Sumation ABC Racket: 72+63+48+59.5+50+100=392.5 XYZ Racket: 80+72+54+63+30+80=379 not sure this would help the mass majority, but if the racket chart is converted to numerical values, maybe this way of formulating your decision making process in purchasing the next suitable racket would be easier rather than the "excellent-" or "good+" if someone can clarify for me that would be GREAT because i'm FOB
Look, everyone knows reviews are subjective, and of course you're going to get people to disagree, and of course you're going to get people to suggest better ways of presenting the information. I think it's ludicrous to do a review and then complain about these things, because they come with the territory. Take the ones you think are valuable, ignore the ones you think aren't. Simple. I think the list is a fantastic resource, but let's not kid ourselves. It's not perfect, but let's face it - who else has the resources to do something even vaguely like this? It's a great - but flawed - resource. And again, just because someone does, doesn't make it automatically beyond reproach. Can we just let the organic nature of dialogue just happen, and not get all precious as righteous about it?
This is exactly why I don't want to assign numerical values. There should be no "summation" because each person doesn't want a sum of what's the best racket, they want certain aspects to weigh more heavily than others. Heck, if two people are two different levels of play, they will probably disagree on rackets. I wrote a lengthy and detailed example but I decided not to post it because... ...anyway, I'm still gonna think about how to relate everything numerically but like Tiger said, it's not exact, not even close, just my best estimate.
I agree, A summation would be terrible!! That is taking the individual aspects of the review and mashing into an uninformative mass of numbers. For example im going to use 2 parameters stiffness and balance. If stiffness got a 9 (stiff) and balance got a 7 (moderate) the overall score is 16. If another racket for stiffness of 7 (moderate) and balance of 9 (head heavy) you still get 16. Now a moderately stiff head heavy racket is enormously different to a stiff racket with moderate balance. Like Dan said, you cant look at the values as a whole. Take the aspects of each racket with a grain of salt and you can tell how they will play relative to each other. For what it matters, I think the review is fine how it is now.
^ please ignore my previous suggestion. I did not mean it to be offensive on the way you've displayed your chart. I thought it might help since business' use similar value system in their decision making process. Sorry again if i offended you Master Dink. the reason i typed that out was thinking, we all value different attributes on the racket we use. Since each player can asign what they value more (ex. power over durability against your review grading) the vaule system would help the buyer decide on which racket would benefit them overall while still having prioritizing their key attributes. Sorry i did not recognize how the level of each player would change the prioritizing originally believe the assignment of values (ex. power>durability>defense>stability) would solve that. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I dont think theres many people on this forum who have tested as many rackets as you , Master Dink, nor many people who have the dedication to do such chart. Thank you.
sorry i've apologize above, but the original idea was (using your 2 parameters Stiffness and Balance. since i would like head heavy racket, and medium flex shaft i'll value head heavy's importance as 10 and stiffness 8 ex on the chart ABC racket: head heaviness=9 / stiffness=7 XYZ racket: head heaviness=7 / stiffness=9 ABC racket: 90(9*10) + 56(7*8) = 146 XYZ racket: 70(7*10) + 72(9*8) = 142 therefore ABC should satisfy the player a bit more than XYZ. but yes i do recognize it flawed.
Oh no worries, no offense taken. I think I do have a better way of making the review and it's partly thanks to you.
AS LONG AS NO OFFENSE TAKEN. i'm good. i really do respect your dedication to this forum and constant contribution to everyone here
Personally, I think either with numbers or adjectives, I would withdraw similar conclusions from the review, as each racket is reviewed relative to it's peers... I for one am really grateful Dink is doing this of his own free will! bolts
hello~ Sir Panda Dan~ have you tried the Apacs Furious 60 before? I'm currently looking for 1 or 2 new racquets. Thanks
I'm doing a spreadsheet at the moment that will allow people just to compare spec's at a glance. Reviews are a bit too subjective for my liking to be used on their own. I think when you have one racket and are looking to try others, your first step should be to compare specs, then go looking for opinions. Already it's helped me find something thats similar to my Head M8k Tour but just different enough to add a small amount to the mix without going completely leftfield.
There's one problem with specs, they can be very off if you go with manufacturer information. Also, there are tolerances, 3U can be 85g-89g. Are you going with each specific racket you encounter? You going to weigh it and find the BP?
It's impossible for me to weigh every racket, but every one I buy I'll weigh just for my own records. At this stage I'm just going on manufacturers specs, and averaging the tolerance if there is one. There really isn't an 'Alternative B'! It's not like I'm a pro that get's showered with rackets, I'm just a poor working class boy with no talent
Hi Master Dink, thanks for updating the review. By the way I noticed number 127, do you mean Yonex Ti10 Purple SP? I think you accidentally put the word nanospeed there. Thanks again Master Dink
This review's a beau. Thanks a bunch, mate. However can you review the Kason L6? You did the Kason L5, which I have but I'm planning on trying out the new one. I honestly just want someone's opinion on it, not many people use Kason racquets out there these days.
i'm just new here? what is flexible and stiff in badminton word? can somebody explain in details, please.. i will appreciate it very much. this help me decide which racket i'm going to buy.. tnx
