hold on a minute i don't want to start anything major one cant easily discredit speedy's experience as he (or she) had tried numerous rackets and some of those aren't really low ends but are similar to AT300 build quality. Racquets I had owned but with not much difference : Carbonex 8,9,10,21,8 tour sp MP 77** Titanium pro For speedy, i think he had found a racket where weight and balance suited him the best. I dont think he was saying the most expensive racket was the best. Maybe he also put a better string on his AT300. String or racket, he did experience improvement. String and rackets are equipments ** I think mp77 is considered a higher end racket than At300 If equipments dont matter, why Peter gade hugs his slim10 so dearly? and XZX, cheung hugs their cab20 so dearly And why many pros still using ti-10 During the visit of the korean MD pair (athen silver medalists), i checked the bag of one player (the tall one), he had like 8 rackets in his bag, they are ti-10, AT800DE, and 1 non yonex. He had used all of these 3 different rackets during the course of 2 hrs, both in warmup and in MD, and XD.
So, you are saying that Peter Gade prefers his slim 10 which is a lower end than the Ti-10 (so, does having better equipment matter?). The point is that Gade and a number of the pro players are used to their racquets and would rather hang on to those than to switch to the latest and greatest. There are also players who will switch to the latest and greatest. If not, then Yonex is going to have one hell of a time trying to convince the general public to buy the new racquets if their sponsored players are hanging onto their slim 10, swing powers, cab 8, etc. Are you saying that you will be a lesser player than you are today if your racquet is at Cab 20 rather than the Nanospeed?
hmm,i guess u didnt understood my last post. I've said speedy had found a racket right for him after trying out many rackets. It just happened that AT300 is new because speedy was constantly looking. Neither i or speedy had said newest or most expensive rackets are the best ones. On peter gade and other pros, slim 10, ti-10, and cab20 were ALL TOP rackets at introduction. They r hanging on their rackets because they have found the racket they liked. In 2003, AT700 was new but i didnt buy it. NS7000 is new but i didnt buy it. Other top rackets i never owned personally are ti10, slim10, MP100, etc
Oh I can use a cheapo racquet and string it with whatever string I like at whatever tension. But my point being, equipment matters because.... **** skill + good equip = **** **** skill + **** equip = **** decent skill + **** equip = decent decent skill + decent equip = better than decent. There is a reason yonex continue to advance with their technology in racquets. That is to improve your game. Any racquet can be suitable for anyone, it just depends on how you choose it. I don't think I've said a word about the more expensive, the better. If equipment does not matter at all in badminton, then people will just use a $1 racquet and start playing. Then yonex will lose their business because no one will buy high end racquets anymore since equipment doesn't matter.
But my point being, equipment DOES NOT matters because.... crap skill + good equip = crap crap skill + **** equip = crap decent skill + **** equip = decent decent skill + decent equip = decent. There is a reason yonex continue to advance with their technology in racquets. That is to get the consumer to buy more racquets. Exactly! so equipment does not matter but your skills.
I think ur being too black and white. for any level of skills, matching up style and skill to certain equips will produce better results. We not advocating crap skill + best equip = best results. We are saying crap skill + right equip = improved result. Pro + right equip = competitive edge. Note i use right equips, not most expensive equips. I think what u said about yonex isnt 100% correct. Automobiles, all sports equip makers, your pc, etc we all eventually replace them with newer models. U work in IT, how come i have to keep on buying the 'next' version of softwares I do online updates more often than haircuts Surely 98% of MS excel user can be happily served by using excel verion 1.0, how come we are all using MS office at least version 4.0 If the new version suppose to fix up the old version, why do we need IT support and/or upgrades now more often than before Explain please
My point exactly, I generalized and all of a sudden, I'm too black and white. Yeah, I could have gone any which way but that's the point isn't it? As for software upgrades, etc...well, why would you go with the latest version of Windows OS? I'm still on W2K and I've no problems staying there nor do I have problems with using Office 2K instead of 2003. You want the latest and greatest because that is the mentality that you have been conditioned for. You say that 98% of MS Excel users can be happy with v1.0 but yet they upgrade, why? 'coz they want the latest and greatest even though they don't use all the features.
Most people upgrade is mostly because they have the money to. While having a coach, people do what they can to improve. Getting a coach to teach you the proper technique is one, but buying better equipment can also help you improve a game
For yourself, and in your case, it may be true. Readers of the forum are looking for information that will succeed. Because each individual is different, random methods might or might not work for that person. Experienced posters, I think, are stressing general methods that will succeed for the most number of readers. Goal: Improve your play Option 1: Get a more expensive racket (low percentage) Option 2: Coaching (high percentage) Posts here influence readers, and while it good to share techniques and methods that have improved your own game, it's a different matter to advocate that particular method/techique will work for everybody. -dave
You described it well. But I think I'm more inclined on the head heavy side cause AT 300 is slightly head heavy. More than that is the faster head speed technology of the armortec series.
