From what I understand you imply better racquet with new high end racquets. I have to disagree with u buddy. Read 10 times what WWC wrote: ''In conclusion, choose your racquet according to your level and style of play to maximize the benefits.'' Doesn't mean the racquet is better that you will get better result.
For singles, I regularly use 3 racquets. Yonex Ti-10 2U stiff Yonex MP100 2U stiff Monsoon Storm 3000 Ti powerlite 4U flexible all are long size. which is the best racquet?
mmm. Too much flaming here to jump in much.. just trying to remember what Dato Eddy Chong said in the malaysian published book, champion of champions?? (I think that's the one) If you can't improve the player, you improve the equipment. Or something along those lines OPEN FOR FLAME.
something to bring up, wut if u can already clear baseline to baseline with a paper racket? *exaggeration* the skill in getting a power racket would then be keeping ur shots in and not hitting too far.
Just Curious... I do subscribe to the fact the rackets are an integral part of unleashing hiding potential from personal experience...if you got the money and it helps your game and confidence I am all for it. But I feel if your beginning in the sport, you are wasting your time with top of the line rackets. Relying on power shot will put you at a disadvantage later when the defenses in higher play levels catches up to offensive potential, in late intermediate to Advanced levels, then you will be lost since you did not develop an all-around game. In my experience it is much more important to develop your game first and have racket(doesn't matter which one) that amplifies those charateristic that are your strengths, than the other way around. My question about pro rackets, does anyone know for certain if the pro racket are completely identical to off the rack models we buy. I know in tennis it is common practice for pro's to have different models but same paint scheme to trick people into thinking they are buying what the pro's use. But this is do to the fact the racket pros use are very difficult for anyone but advanced to professional to use effectively. I wonder if this same practice is duplicated in badminton...
Open for flame again: The word "better" is very subjective. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the most part, the "better" shot is the one that goes to the correct spot, with the correct speed, and correct arch (to put it simply). Of course there are racquets designed to help us do this. But what if the "better" shot meant being able to hit to the correct spot, with the correct speed, with the correct arch WITH ALL RACQUETS - and in this case, say the least tolerant ones - the ones that either give you a good or bad shot. This might be, by some, called accuracy. I know some people call those who take consideration into the sound of the shot a bit obessessive, but in the end, when a game is going so fast you can bearly watch the bird fly, let alone follow exactly which spot and how the bird hit the racquet, all you really can do is listen. I'm sure everyone here has experienced a really nice, clear, smash that rings with power and clarity. This, I hope everion agrees, is achieved through hitting exactly on the sweet spot. In less well executed shots, the smash (though loud as well) will be different, and there will be a more raspy, less clear, sound. Perhaps another question to throw on the table is: is the sound important? Is the fact that the player is hitting smack in the centre of the sweet spot important or is simply getting the easiest winning game the more important? A more forgiving and powerful racquet will compensate this lack of accuracy in a shot and still manage to give a good amount of speed to the shot. However, a less powerful racquet, will obviously not. If we simply separate the "better" perhaps it would be easier to answer the question. Does the game, and shot result matter more, or the feel of the shot?
If you hit the shot correctly with a MP30. And does the same on MP99, there should be a difference in power or control. Otherwise Mp99 wouldn't be more expensive now would it?
Another thing I just thought about: As most of you have agreed on, the professionals will have learned the proper technique already. Hence, it is then up to them to choose the racquet of their preference, and what works best for them to bring out the best game for them. HOWEVER, for developing players, is the choice of the most suitable racquet apt for them? Firstly, as a developing player (I'm saying rather elementary) how will they know? For them, whatever racquet gets the best result and has the most power will be the best - they really can't tell the difference for the most part. I coach kids, and a lot of them have gotten new racquets, and I ask them, how do you like it - better than your old one? They shrug for the most part and say they dont' know. Is it justifiable for a developing player to get the "best" racquet for them just so they can have a "better game" when in fact, as a coach, you can tell their arm isn't straight enough, or they're only using their wrist, or their hitting off the sweet spot and still getting a pretty decent shot because their racquet is compensating? Is their result justifying the fact that their technique is lacking?
So are you basically saying we should simply pay for power? I agree with your arguement of control. This is a factor VERY important to the game. However, it is the power that bugs me. Ontop of that, I'm not comparing the MP30 with the MP 99, it's something more like say the Cab 8 and the MP99. Which one would you say is the better racquet then? Taking out the "preference", and I know there is such a thing, are we simply going to use power to judge a racquet's quality? If I gave you two racquets (takingo ut whether you can play with them or not), would you judge them soully on power and control? As I said, I agree with control, but weighing power as well is another story. When you say pay more for the MP99 for power and control, it's saying that we should pay to have more power in our racquets. To use a comparison, it's basically saying: let's pay more money to buy a bigger gun so we can win the shootout. Say...instead of paying for a regular pistol, you pay for a machine gun. Well I'd probably bet on the machine gun, and half the reason the guy with the machine gun would win (I'll also assume unlimited amo) is cause of the rapid fire and the lack of neccessity to aim at an exact spot to deal damage - unlike the pistol. Wouldn't you say so? Just keep in mind, this comparison is soully talking about power and money, not about control. This is an exaggerated example. I'm just pointing out it's easier to win, but winning doesn't really prove skill all the time. One factor is psychological state. Another might be a racquet (obviously I'm talking about two people with almost equal skills).
Skills will always triumph technology. If you can't even get a good lift from your opponents, how can you smash and exploit the 'power' of your equipment? Also, no matter how hard you hit, eventually your opponents will get used to the speed and start returning your smash with added interest. It's just a matter of time. Besides, racquet technology still requires good form from the player to release its full potential, so we still come back to skills being the essential component. It's easier to hit harder than to hit with intent and control. You see all those pros playing with such high tensions because they want to retain control over the power that modern racquet technologies bestowed upon their shots. You can't win points if you keep hitting them out. Badminton with its numerous variability is the ultimate equilizer. Whoever has the best skills and want it the most wins (usually the case). So it's really pointless to worry about unfair advantages the latest gadgets can give.
but with the MP99, person A might get less power than with MP30 Person B might get more with MP99 than MP30
As a master of course, money is the passport to anything but it can not change the level of player, forever !
Err but what if there are two person A's with the same skill level? And if they both hit the sweetspot correctly with the right technique and same amount of power? lalanthier: I'm not paying for power, I'm paying for what I get. I'm not relying on power or the racquet. I'm using the racquet to help make the game more enjoyable, and of course to win. Why not have an easier win if you're willing to spend the money? Skill is combined with the equipment. In my opinion, if you don't have skill, your equipment is useless. And same with the other way around. If you don't have decent equipment, your decent skill is useless.
I think the problem is that we're thinking of the influence of skill and quality of racket in a "linear" sort of way. It's hard to describe it in turns of rackets and skills, so I'll describe it instead in terms of games. When I started out playing badminton, I was getting whipped by everyone. Then I got a little bit better. I had an opponent, and she was really good at drop shots, and her technique was very good so she was very efficient... but she lacked power, so she couldn't do the base-to-base clears in certain situations. If she used her drop shots on me, they'd almost always put me under extreme pressure, or score a point. In contrast, if i were to drive it into a "power game", and play with hard drives and smashes, then I'd win the points. But because I was a beginner at the time, what i call the "turnover" would be very high. As soon as I learned better footwork to cover those net shots, then it was all over... she could no longer touch me. A little later, I played against an opponent who had much tougher better smashing than me... but his netplay was weak. He would always beat me, until I learned to exploit his netplay... and now that I,ve got a certain level of net-proficiency, he can't touch me. And there were so many others, when i was a beginer, who were like stepping stones. These are the people I,m talking about who beat you with a couple of tricks that they use all the time. That guy who had the trick serve that always got me. That guy who had the "perfect" lateral drop shot, or the perfect hairpin. The guy who could clear onto the corners with perfect accuracy. These people each had their one special move, their specialty, whatever-- and they could win with them. But their weaknesses were every other aspect of their games-- it's just that by using their special move against a beginner like myself, they could "cover up" their own weaknesses. When I added deffenses to my game specifically to counter their specialties, then it was over, and I moved on to playing better players. What I'm saying is that though it may seem like some people can "cover up" their weakest links by compensating in other areas, "all things being equal" a weakness is a weakness and it will bog you down. I beleive that a player should strive to improve their gameplay in a with a well rounded philosophy. That means working on weaknesses before working on specialties. All the "stage opponents" (think like in Megaman games) all had their specialities and they got really good at them...and it's okay at first to bully the beginners. But if you leave yourself weak in any area, then expect to be beaten once someone finds out how to exploit it... plain and simple. If there is a player who has terrible technique, he may seem to be winning his games because of his sheer power and because of his racket-- sure, that's possible-- but they're capping their own progress. They could be so much better if they worked on other things to well round their deffenses.. If i had an absolute mirror image of myself, and one of us used a good racket and another a really lousy one, the one with the good racket would win. SImilarly, if my mirror and I used the same racket, then the winner would come down to a question of skill. If we could arbitrarily assign a "unit of racket quality" and a "unit of player skill", that would be useful... but my point is that it's not just an accumulation of units of both that make a winning player. It's also about the balance of the two. Meaning, a gross disbalance like 1000 points in racket quality and only 100 points in player skill is not efficient-- you should spent your money on coaching. And on the other hand, if you've been coached into a world champion already and have 1000 skill points but 100 racket points (a wooden one maybe?) you can't honestly tell me you,re going to go to the championships. In my own head, I like to think of a racket as a "multiplying coefficient". Whatever my current skill level, I multiply it by the racket coefficient-- Say I have my usual racket, with a coefficient of 1.15, then I'd say that my overal performance is NORMAL PERFORMANCE multiplied by the racket coefficient. Aribtrarily, I'd say: A wooden racket = 0.9 A steel racket = 0.95 A "no-frills" graphite racket = 1.00 A good racket that I'm not accustomed to= 1.10 A good racket that I'm used to = 1.15 A "GREAT RACKET" that I'm not accustomed to = 1.14 A "GREAT RACKET" that I get used to = 1.20 A good racket helps, but it's certainly not everything. It's something that magnifies or diminishes the importance of your skills. And what I was trying to say earlier with my examples of different "stages of opponents", the point is that there will be times that you will feel that your current skill level has "outgrown" the playability of your racket. That's when a new racket is a beneficial change, because it's improoving your weakest link. I like the expression, "Games are not won, they are lost". The champions don't win games with "specialties" that work all the time on their own-- they're part of a much larger equation that is reliant on harmony and balance with other aspects of their game plan. In the same way, a great racket can help-- but there are other factors that make a racket great. Guns don't kill people, people do-- same thing. Rackets aren't great on their own, people make them great.
then they both get the same result with the MP99, and they both get the same result with the MP30. but which has more power, and which has more control, you can't say. good skill + crap equipment beats crap skill + good equipment every time
There is at least one situation where a good racket is important. A racket that delivers power to the shuttle with less effort is important for singles. In a tournament, where you have to play a lot of matches(because you play all events), using a racket that requires more effort to clear/smash with, you will be at a severe disadvantage if the players you play against have better rackets. Of course, if you don't play competitively, and only play for recreation, then the above does not apply.
If one use MP99 and one use MP30, are you saying racquets don't make a difference at all? And..... good skill + crap equipment beats crap skill + good equipment.... I agree with that, however. If you have crap skill, would you get crap equipment or good equipment?
Are you laughing at me? :crying: Well, if you have crap skills.... You can't HELP it. And it's not like your skills will get better if you use "crap equipment". So why not get "good equipment"?
