Rackets -they do matter

[Devilicious]

Now before anyone starts blasting me on how technique is more important than rackets, I would like to tell a story.

There's a girl in my school who plays badminton at our practices. She can't perform clears from base to base. I'd say the furthest clear she executes from the baseline would be to the middle of the opponent's court. She was using a lower end Wilson racket. Then, this one day, I play against her and during warmups in the local YMCA, I amazingly found out that she was returning my clears to her baseline with much more ease. Moreover, her shortest clear returns can at least reach past the doubles long serve line. Knowing that she doesn't practice often and, judging from her form, still isn't using weight transfer properly, I was totally astonished. I see her Wilson racket has been replaced by the new ns7k. But still, I wasn't convinced that a change of racket would result in such major difference. My friend asked to test her racket. I believe his main racket is a YY Ti something, ti3 I think. But anyway, he executed a long serve as he always did, same strength and, OMG, the shuttle went out about 2 meters. He was so surprised at the effect that he couldn't believe it. So he told someone to play a few clears with him. The result? His clears were as out as his serve.

So this made me think. Yes, the proper form is crucial in playing badminton, but high ends rackets can also compensate for the lack of technique, to a certain extent. Am I right? I'm just wondering whether rackets technology improve at such a fast rate that almost anyone will be able to hit shots like base to base clears without much effort. And I'm not even talking about the speed of smashes yet.

Anyone has similar experience?

[Devilicious]

Just a note. I'm not suggesting that anyone who uses the best racket will become professional player. What I'm trying to say is the racket can still produce significant effects in the game.

[surge]

i can affirm that racket definitely does make a difference. a group of us(badminton players) were discusssing about who's using what while waiting for our turn to play. then a girl who has been playing with us who cant really clear base to base showed me her racket. some ISO swing from yonex. the racket feels really light and the tension is very low cos she say she bought the racket off the rack and comes with string.being a avid Ti10 fan,i told her to try my girlfriend's Ti10 at 23lb. she play a game with it and was very happy with the racket and tension and decided to get a similar racket. though i am always to see ppl using Ti10( i really adore it!!!), I told her to restring her racket to similar tension to see if it get better before getting a new racket

bottom line is racket definitely makes a difference.....if you are talking about a low end and a high end one. however, i doubt you will see a lot of diiference if you switch from say a Ti10 to muscle power 99 or the NS7k

just my 2 cents worth

[jayes]

Yeah, racket may contribute to your performance too. For example, if you are a beginner and don't have the physical strength to wield a racket that is stiff and heavy (ie 2U) to hit the shuttle over the net, there is no point of getting that kind of racket. However, my suggestion is if you already have a racket and the performance seems not suitable for you, instead of changing the racket, try changing the string and string tension first. Remember you hit the shuttle directly with your racket string. As Gollum (I think it was Gollum. Maybe I am mistaken?) had suggested, one factor at a time.

Cheers!

[New_Guy04]

i find that...

1.) For beginners (who can't play well) racket makes big difference. Say if they are playing with a group of other amateurs. If he is one of the worst in the group, with a good racket, he can beat most of them.

2.) Intermediates- Racket makes LEAST difference for them. For example, if i play with someone who is equal with me, i bet i can still give him a good fight with a lower end racket.

3.) PROS- Believe it or not, it makes a HUGE difference. Ppl in this forum always go "Pros don't need a good racket, and they can probably still beat all of us." WEll, this quote is definetly invalid, because OF COURSE PROS CAN BEAT US. Pros are NEVER going to play competitively with amateurs like us,they only play with pros like themselves. For example, let's refer to the quarter final match in olympics 2004 TAUFIK VS GADE. Taufik won by a thin margin, but what if he was using a like a LOW END TECHNO RACKET? Of course, Gade would have won, or even THRASH taufik in that match.

[wood_22_chuck]

Originally Posted by New_Guy04

i find that...

...

3.) PROS- Believe it or not, it makes a HUGE difference. Ppl in this forum always go "Pros don't need a good racket, and they can probably still beat all of us." WEll, this quote is definetly invalid, because OF COURSE PROS CAN BEAT US. Pros are NEVER going to play competitively with amateurs like us,they only play with pros like themselves. For example, let's refer to the quarter final match in olympics 2004 TAUFIK VS GADE. Taufik won by a thin margin, but what if he was using a like a LOW END TECHNO RACKET? Of course, Gade would have won, or even THRASH taufik in that match.

The problem with this question is the focus on one single item, the racket, while in a game, the performance of an athlete is the culmination of training, mental strength, physical state, etc.

"Of course, Gade would have won" statement is your assumption.

If you want to convince readers that racket makes a difference, you're going to have to make a much stronger argument than personal account. What works for you, might not work for everybody.

-dave

[loverush]

"'Of course, Gade would have won' statement is your assumption."

I would have to say that is a reasonable assumption given the scenario. The fact that he described Taufik won by only a small margin, it would be logical to assume that if Taufik had some 10 dollar racket, than he would have lost. It would be ignorant to say that rackets make NO difference whatsoever.
Modern equipment can greatly affect the performance of players. Just like newer hockey sticks that allow players to shoot harder than ever before. Or new swim suits with material that is designed to behave much like shark's skin and allows swimers to easily shatter previous world records.
You wouldn't think such little things like the material of your swimsuit or the smoothless of your legs would make a difference for top athletes but they do. Top atheletes do shave their legs to reduce friction. The fact is, top athletes are so high up and similar to one another in skill, that they can use any advantage they can get.
Now that does not mean I am 100% agreeing that rackets make a HUGE difference like New_guy04 says, but I am sure that a racket can play a large factor in a player's performance, if the rackets being compared are low end vs high end.

[keith_aquino]

I'd have to agree that raquets do make a difference but I think the difference would only be marginal, especially for someone new to badminton.

[surge]

Originally Posted by wood_22_chuck

The problem with this question is the focus on one single item, the racket, while in a game, the performance of an athlete is the culmination of training, mental strength, physical state, etc.

"Of course, Gade would have won" statement is your assumption.

If you want to convince readers that racket makes a difference, you're going to have to make a much stronger argument than personal account. What works for you, might not work for everybody.

-dave

think this assumption is valid since they are all very good players. if taufik were to use a yonex b-460( SIN$9.90 each) and uses the factory prestrung strings. i really doubt he can win.

if racket doesnt make any difference yonex would have gone bankkrupt long ago. think here we are talking about players with about equal standards playing against each other. have a friend who undergoes training and he can win us with a squash racket. then this is a unfair comparison cos his skills are way above ours. i doubt he would dare try a squash racket with one of similar standard as him

[LazyBuddy]

Originally Posted by Devilicious

So this made me think. Yes, the proper form is crucial in playing badminton, but high ends rackets can also compensate for the lack of technique, to a certain extent. Am I right? I'm just wondering whether rackets technology improve at such a fast rate that almost anyone will be able to hit shots like base to base clears without much effort. And I'm not even talking about the speed of smashes yet.

Anyone has similar experience?

I believe there's difference between a suitable (not necessarily most expensive) racket and a non-suitable one (might still be a very expensive racket). Therefore, if a player picks a "non-usable" racket (might be cheap $10 racket from KMart, or a $200 top of the line racket, but not fit for his/her strength / style) for him/herself, then, their performance will be dragged down. However, the difference between a useable (but cheaper) and a useable (but much more expensive) racket, might not bring very significant difference.

For myself, popualr high end racket such as AT800/700, MP100 and Ti10 could only be a killer to my arm. However, not the most expensive Cab30ms can make my game to be flawless (to my own lowly standard, of course).

[wirre]

This is what I've always advocated, cheap/expensive or lowend/highend isn't as important as suitable/non-suitable. Indeed it will make some differance but as LazyBuddy says if you find two rackets which suits the same player equally well then a more expensive "highend" racket won't be sigificant different to a cheaper "lowend" racket.

So in the example given by the OP, it might be a combination of both. The girl found a racket which suits her better than the one she had before, *and* it happened to be one of the newest highend rackets on the market with new technology. But what about strings and tension? There are still too many varaiables not covered in this case to make a conclusion.

/ mats - another one who would kill the arm using MP100 or Ti10

Originally Posted by LazyBuddy

I believe there's difference between a suitable (not necessarily most expensive) racket and a non-suitable one (might still be a very expensive racket). Therefore, if a player picks a "non-usable" racket (might be cheap $10 racket from KMart, or a $200 top of the line racket, but not fit for his/her strength / style) for him/herself, then, their performance will be dragged down. However, the difference between a useable (but cheaper) and a useable (but much more expensive) racket, might not bring very significant difference.

For myself, popualr high end racket such as AT800/700, MP100 and Ti10 could only be a killer to my arm. However, not the most expensive Cab30ms can make my game to be flawless (to my own lowly standard, of course).

[Devilicious]

Originally Posted by LazyBuddy

I believe there's difference between a suitable (not necessarily most expensive) racket and a non-suitable one (might still be a very expensive racket). Therefore, if a player picks a "non-usable" racket (might be cheap $10 racket from KMart, or a $200 top of the line racket, but not fit for his/her strength / style) for him/herself, then, their performance will be dragged down.

The weird part is, after seeing the effect the racket produces with my friend, other people were amazed and asked to try the racket. The result? Well, it looks like everyone got a decent strength boost. Given that the people who tested the racket aren't beginners, would this suggest that the racket is suitable for everyone (at least all those who have tried it)? I doubt that.

[frankcent]

perhaps, the tension is low on her racquet.

[LazyBuddy]

Originally Posted by Devilicious

The weird part is, after seeing the effect the racket produces with my friend, other people were amazed and asked to try the racket. The result? Well, it looks like everyone got a decent strength boost. Given that the people who tested the racket aren't beginners, would this suggest that the racket is suitable for everyone (at least all those who have tried it)? I doubt that.

The new racket is a NS7k, which is known for the head lightness when compare to most other rackets. Therefore, if a person who used to swing with a head heavier racket, just switching to NS7K and with same amount of effort to execute the swing, u will notice the swing speed will be faster. Then, that usually (not always) means u can shoot faster and further. Therefore, most of the ppl who tried (using underhand serve?) should belong to this case.

However, badminton is not all about "who shoot further" or "who shoot faster", etc. The control is more important than the power, and placement is more important than the distance. Therefore, NS7k (or any other rackets) is not for everyone. Like u metioned, the 2nd person shoot everything out, is that a good thing if in real play?

[wood_22_chuck]

Wow.

I'm currently watching Game 5 of the NBA finals between San Antonio Spurs and Detroit Pistons, with the series tied 2-2. I find the Taufik example similar to San Antonio saying, "if only the ball was better, we'd be up 3-1 instead of 2-2."

If you find that racket makes a difference to you, great. There's plenty of company, as you can see from the posts in favor.

Racket suitability is a more coherent argument. Racket flex rating, string gauge, string tension, grip size ... yes, these are more relevent factors, indeed.

-dave

[Brave_Turtle]

I highly doubt Taufik likes low end racquet with low factory tension so I think argument New_guy04 valid.

And ''YES'' racquet can make a difference!

[loverush]

Originally Posted by wood_22_chuck

Wow.

I'm currently watching Game 5 of the NBA finals between San Antonio Spurs and Detroit Pistons, with the series tied 2-2. I find the Taufik example similar to San Antonio saying, "if only the ball was better, we'd be up 3-1 instead of 2-2."

I think that anology is a bit off, its more of an argument for the score would be different if there were better shuttlecocks. The ball is used by both teams.