sorry for going off-topic, Hi adonis and easy tiger, I know that both of you are from melbourne. I'm studying in melbourne currently. I have a question if you guys dont mind me asking. I'm currently a upper C or B grade player in melbourne, I'm wondering if at my level, will i be able fully utilize or at least to a level that i would be satisfied with, an arcsaber Z? I'm thinking of getting either that or arcsaber 10 or At900p too. but i've nvr tried using such expensive racquets before (currently using apacs vh1800). so i'm wondering if such racquets would be wasted in my hands lol. sorry again for going off-topic
where can you get it from and at what price? i have searched everywhere dude if you are upper C or B i would think you are better than me already are u at UOM?
My experience only... BG66 Maxima - Excellent and more lasting. BG66 - Usually breaks after 10 - 12 games. NBG98 - Excellent and lasting. So far lasted more than 20 games.. still waiting for it to break.. Thanks.
I'm a B1 grade player, so everything is wasted on me! heh. I didn't like the Nanogy 95, so getting me on the 98 is gunna be nigh on impossible, so looks like the next thing to try is the Maxima or ZM62. fm1fm2, I'm a complete lemming and currently only have top end rackets. However, I see guys all around me play some killer games on 100 buck rackets, so I don't think it's even necessarily a good idea to have high end rackets at our level. Many are not terribly forgiving, and although I do think they can help raise your game, I think sometimes they can be a hindrance. To the point where I think my next little 'gearhead' project is to actually try some of the lower end rackets to see if the top enders actually are worth double the price.
never going to really happen. its not really a quantitative measure, its more of qualitive measure. plus, its hard to directly equate a rackets price to its performance. its a pretty personal thing. sorry for off topic...
lol I dont really consider myself as a B grade player. normally I survive only the 1st round (the best is 3 rounds) lol. so yeah i'm still wondering if i should get such high end racquet. anyway thx for the input guys!
Keen to try the Maxima but it's damn expensive. I'm actually pretty happy with the performance of BG80 I have to admit, but I'll see how the 67 goes over the next few weeks. I had a bit of a session last night with all my rackets, playing a couple of games each with them because at this stage I'd really like to single one out as my go-to racket. Early days yet but I find it hard not to consistently pick up the Z. The AT900 is currently my second pick, but it's more like a long term girlfriend, whereas the Z is the lusty mistress. LMAO! The Z just makes you want to be a better player, punishing you for being a lazy ****, but rewarding you when you get everything right. The AT900 is a very consistant and accomplished racket and I can see why a lot of people would be happy with it, but it doesn't elicit the same emotion as the Z. I'm also not convinced of the benefits of head heavy rackets when although the Z and the AT are exactly the same finished weight, the Z is faster and packs more punch [when you get it right]. The big drawcard with the 900's is that they're so forgiving and have a nice big sweetspot, they're easy to like.
same deal with me. a larger sweetspot is ok when i want to play lazy baddy (b'cos the opponent is playing lazy so might as well join). but i like the less forgiving arc zs, b'cos i'll try my best to dial-in my every shot and its rewards are sweeter than the one w bigger sweetspot. plus it packs aplenty when done right. all in all, the more you play it the more you'll like it. bravo!
Easy too like and big sweetspot seem more attractive than hard to use and unforgiving...imop My stance is pretty much the opposite.. If you play "lazy" badminton you will have plenty of time and can easily live with an unforgiving racket, as you will have plenty of time to hit the sweetspot dead on and can make very controlled defence without diving all over etc. pushing the limits.. it is when you play an all-out game against a challanging opponent that makes you struggle to reach the shots and be in position/balance or have a big attack that makes it hard for you to defend, that I really appreciate (and need) the forgiveness and larger sweetspot.. If you play lazy and have all the time in the world.. You will hit the sweet-spot consistently anyway even if it is small.. That i my view.. /Twobeer
That's a simplistic approach. When I get the ZS right, it's better than anything, and to me those highs are probably worth the odd mishit that probably comes more of a fact that I suck rather than the Z being a bad racket. I get the impression twobeer that you're 'over' the modified ISO headshape of the ZS / TC700 and are now doing your best LD impersonation with the N90. Confirm or deny!
Answer: deny No.. I use TC700 for most games, but I do like the N90 and could seriously think to switch to it.. maybe I will succumb to N90-II.. N70 and N50 is also feels real nice I am deeply impressed with the feel of the Li Ning N-range (have not tried any of their "reasonably priced" models...) If you read the forum, you can se many people think TC700 is a beast and to hard for them to get the tap the power due to its smaller sweetspot and stiffness. The sweetspot size of Arc-Z is NOT the main reason why it is a racket in my taste.. It is the CONTROL aspect.. I think it lacks control in defence and slices etc due the extra long shaft, that should have been made way stiffer in my opinion.. The long mid-flex shaft is not a sound design TOGETHER with a small sweetspot imho, as the precision in many shots suffer to a large degree.. /Twobeer
I've been reading various "reviews" on the Arc-z for the last hour and this is the most useful info i've read so far (for me anyway) From what you've described, it sounds like my first experience of an arc 10. I remember thinking, if i'm on top form, moving properly, correct technique/ footwork etc, then this will be great. BUT only for singles, it felt a bit too "flappy" for doubles. I did like the easy power i generated with it, but it seemed this came at too large a price, namely control. This was a 10 minutes hit after putting my ti-10 down. Can anyone confirm the type of game Yonex had in mind for the Arc-Z, singles, doubles?? From the hype, and general feeling here, I think it's a singles raquet.
Again the same racket may feels differently on different people. To put it simple, i kinda agree with Metalorange. The longer you stick with Arc ZS the more you love and stuck with it. For now, Arc Z is my ONLY racket for singles and doubles, neglecting my AT900T, Ti-10, and my LN N55. IMHO, Arc Z for singles = Powerful clear, back court and "4 corner" play, Deadly Smash, medium netplay. Overall a very fast attacking racket. Arc Z for double = Quick racket!!! (quicker than NS9900 for me). But it compensate the lack of power in smashes from NS9900 as well. So using Arc Z in doubles quicken your game and reflex but at the sametime backcourt powerful smashes and front net kills are there as well. Net play and backcourt drop shots are easy meat with Arc Z once you get use to it. To me, Arc Z is a perfect racket for both doubles and singles. Strictly personal experience / opinion
I think it is aimed for singles, as it was launched with a bang when both Taufik and Lee Chong Wei used it at Japan Open.. But it seems both have dissed the racket for their game so far (LCW has mostly been using 900P and Taufik Arc-10 in the latest tournaments). Today it is only Kenichi Tago, that I know of, of the pros that uses the Arc-Z, and he is a singles player Cheers, T
Thanks Tckang for your helpful views of the Z slash. And thanks twobeer for the above, all useful info before i try the Z. I may give the arc 10 another go, against the Z and my ti-10. I'm lucky to have to opportunity to try them. I can only try 2 racquets at a time, hence all my questions. IMHO, the review of a new racquet should be more about how it PLAYS against it's predecessor or other "famous" racquets. this will make it more usefull for others reading. Can you repeatedly play a slice drop, as well as a deceptive punch clear, can you tumble with feel, can you repeatedly smash in the tramlines etc. The size of the head and colour should be minor details for finishing a review, not the review itself. It does surprise me how some people review the fashion of the racquets over performance. I've never been a fashion guru, too busy trying to play badminton properly.... Again just my opinion, i'll still read reviews but when i get to the finish of some, i feel like "well at least the new arc 1001 will match my shoes"
twobeer, i beg to differ fm you view, very much. lazy baddy for me is when the opponent don't care and i don't care (about the state of play), but i still wanna win it, right? therefore, the forgiving racquet is better. serious baddy is when i whip my arc zs cos everything dialed in is gonna be lethal. prolonged using and getting more accustomed to it everytime i use it makes it all the more lethal. i trust once i am used to an unforgiving racquet, i eventually and naturally gets better in the process. MetalOrange
Quote: Originally Posted by Danstevens Am I right in thinking that generally speaking, the larger the sweetspot is, the less "sweet" it is when you hit it? Unquote. absolutely. however, there are no definite absolutes you might agree? i want to be consistent and when the tiny sweetspot is struck perfectly (most of the time i mean, admittedly it can be misjudge specially on split second cursory glance sometimes,) it is even more powerful than the larger trampoliney effect of racquets with larger sweetspots. i am no pro but i like training and playing this way. kind regards, MetalOrange
