Do semi-pro to pro players play 5% better? 10%? 20%? 30% etc.? High end = rackets like arc10 vt80 compared to mp100, mp99, arc7, at250, etc.
IMHO, 0%... because if they were to play against me, they'd still win by the same score 21-3 21-3 no matter which racket they use!
The main difference between a high end racquet vs a low end racquet, even in a situation where both racquets play identical, is the composition of each racquet. The high end racquets will always be made of better and more durable graphite compared to the low end ones. The professional players are really just like us all, where we each have a preference of a certain "close-to-perfect" racquet that matches each of our individual styles. In this case, the professional players also tend to use higher tensions and hit harder (more physical capabilities, you see), which the higher end racquets can withstand and where the lower end racquet will tend to break apart because of the stresses involved with high tension stringing and very hard hitting associated with the professional players. So in theory, a professional player or any player can choose to use a lower end racquet, provided that the racquet suits the individual's play style with no consequences (i.e. you cannot say that for example you can play 100% with a certain high end racquet while you can only play 10% with a low end racquet which has similar characteristics to the high end one). It is only when the factors of high string tension and very hard/strong hitting power come into play then you will definitely know that the low end (i.e. fragile) graphite racquet can never be able to withstand and sustain the player's play. Do remember that I am comparing racquets of similar characteristics that suit an individual player here. Once you compare lets say a VT80 vs Isometric Zeta (both very different racquets) being used by for example LCW, then your comparison is totally unfair and you will not be able to reach a scientific or logical conclusion.
Racket's technology development was quite good/mature by the end of 20th century. So actually there is not that much difference for them. The important technology developments were wood to steel to graphite, jointless t-joint and isometric shape. From there the advancement or development of new materials and grommet systems are only marginal improvements. The pros have to keep on using new rackets w/ new technologies because they are the "showcase" of the manufacturers. So whether they like the new rackets or not is not relevant. They are paid to do so and to them a little difference in racket's feel is easily adjusted. Some tennis pros are pressurized to use the sponsors' latest/greatest (usually most expensive ones) such that they also "force" the sponsors to repaint their old/regular rackets to make them look like the new models they are supposed to use.
That does not seem to be the case with badminton players. For instance, a lot of players still stick to their "old faithfuls" throughout the year. Example are Taufik Hidayat with the Arc10, Lin Dan with the 1st gen AT700 (now N90 which is similar in characteristics, and also N50II which is still similar but less demanding than the previous two), Marc Zweibler with the Arc7 and etc. to name a few. These players are still very openly using the "old" racquets (most are pre-2010 if you noticed). The most important job for a professional player is to win. And to do that they will definitely prefer to use the racquets that they are most adapted to and which most represent and can convert their playing style into results during gameplay.
Wasnt there a rumor with TH that the Z slash that he used for a short while 2 years ago was just a repainted Arc 10?
Notice that most high end racket are stiff or extra stiff. You might ask; why is this? The degree of stiffness in a racket should correspond to the degree of strength of the user's wrist or more exactly the supination and pronation of the forearm. I would expect most pro's strength would match more closely to a stiff or extra stiff racket then a medium flex racket. So to answer your question I think a pro will have better consistency and power with a "higher end" or any decently stiff racket than a medium stiff or less even stiff racket. Side note: from my personal experience playing badminton, I have found the most performance gains come from newer thinner strings, rather than newer rackets.
Though VT 80 and Iso Zeta are different rackets, they are not very different. Both are similarly head heavy though VT 80 stands out in other areas. Just pointing it out, no offence.
err...do you really consider mp100, mp99 and arcs7 low end? anyway to the topic, i doubt fhf can smash anywhere near the speed he is doing with a racket like yang yang smash power 1.8 (at clone but when i compared the bp it near my ns6000 and extremely flexi).
This is my opinion.. its not that the player choose the high end racket...its just the racket that they chose became high end product. it dosent matter what kind of composite that are used.. they can play as well as now even with wooden racket. if LCW 1 day get new sponsor (such as apcs for example) then he will try their racket and he pick tatrum 200 (for example). then before he officially use that apacs will came with new commercial for new tatrum 200 2013 LCW edition with new paint and bla..bla..bla.. hehehe...
I guess they're not very low end, but I mean the technology and material is cheaper. I guess it is better for me to use a high end apacs instead of a low end yonex even though I'm not that good. Carbon and regular graphite rackets has less advantage than h.m graphite but I'm not sure how much better it is.
I think what technology contributes to a pro's choice of racquets is the cumulative effect. Each feature (weight, T-joint, damping, flex/stiffness, flex point, high-tension stringing acceptance etc) taken in isolation, would offer only an incremental quotient of improvement for the player. But taken together, they give a player a (very) significant edge over his clone playing with say, a MP23 or a Carlton 3.7x. (damn! wish I still had that 3.7x.... )
Somehow I agree with this! Just give them tens of different rackets, and let them choose. The chosen racket will get great marketing, expensive price, etc.
I've seen this Malaysian national junior boys champion that won his title with a USD30 racket when he was supposed to be sponsored with Yonex USD250 rackets. Apparently these are the underhand tricks employed by opponents having bribed certain officials in making life difficult for him..... but thats another story altogether.... Back to the topic, I'd like to compare pro players with rackets like pro racing drivers with cars. Pro players with low end rackets will beat any social players with high end rackets in court just like a pro racing driver with a road car will beat a daily driver with a sports car on the race track. How much better is relative as it depends on what the pro is starting off with. just like comparing the A2 with an R8 or the TT with an R8, there's a lot of difference.... Having said that, doesnt everyone wants to drive a ferrari or a porsche even though he knows he cant drive it to its full potential? same like rackets....
I agree with you, raksasa.gorgon. Except the last sentence. While driving a fast overpowered car is risky... You're not risking your life or healthy if you're using any high end rackets
I don't think this question shld be ask in the first place,because no one will know the answer except the pro. We can speculate all we want. Just my 2 cents.
