Ya, a very old thread indeed. Talking about Prince rackets being banned from competition. But what do you guys think about their O3 racket? I think that should be ok
SystemicAnomaly
Regular Member
I believe that the only Prince racket models that we saw in the US (since the early or mid-90s) were those with the Y-shaped throat. They were probably deemed unacceptable for international tournament play becuz their mains were too long in the middle.
I've seen some conventionally shaped & sized Prince rackets advertised on Filipino and Japanese web sites. These rackets, I believe, are probably ok for international tournament play. Correct me if I'm wrong abt this.
Are Prince rackets still available in Canada? I had only seen the O3 rackets advertised in Japan. Are they available elsewhere?
Not sure if the O3 design isn't just a gimmick when it comes to badminton rackets. It works very well for tennis racket design, but does it really have any advantage for badminton rackets? Too often, badminton racket makers imitate innovations in tennis racket design -- whether it really makes sense or not.
Stretch rackets and extra light rackets come to mind. Don't think that you see too many rackets that are much longer than standard or weigh less than 85g any longer.
NE1 tried 1 of the O3 rackets? Any merits to this design.
Don't know about the newer Prince frames. I've been told that the old Axis 65 shouldn't go any higher that 21 lbs or so. My newer TT Warrior (c. 2004) was ok for the 18-30 lb range.
SystemicAnomaly
Regular Member
I am puzzled. Just checked the measurements of the stringbed of the Axis 65 and the TT Warrior, both Y-shaped, and found that they comply with Law 4.2
4.2 The stringed area:
4.2.2 shall not exceed 280 mm in overall length and 220 mm in overall width.
Cannot find any other reason in Law 4.1 or 4.2 which would make these rackets unsuitable for international tournament play. Does NE1 have a clue as to why any of the Prince racket models may not have been legal for tournament play?
4.2 The stringed area:
4.2.2 shall not exceed 280 mm in overall length and 220 mm in overall width.
Cannot find any other reason in Law 4.1 or 4.2 which would make these rackets unsuitable for international tournament play. Does NE1 have a clue as to why any of the Prince racket models may not have been legal for tournament play?
chickenpoodle
Regular Member
well, it seems like the trend for a while was straying away from 2U and 3U racquets to 3U and 4U racquets.
there are a few manufacturers that have a good number of models with 4U and even 5U ratings, blackknight, karakal, carlton, kason, and even yonex (with a constant list of new 4U racquets) just to name a few.
SystemicAnomaly
Regular Member
What model?
Are these Yonex U designations standard for all manufacturers? Way back when, they appeared not to be but may have become more standardized in recent years. According to cooler's measurements, grip size appears to have a bearing on the actual weight of a particular U designation. Does the U designation say anything about the balance or swingweight of a racket?
I believe that the specs below refer to the unstrung weight of Yonex frames:
2U = 90-94g
3U = 85-89g
4U = 80-84g
chickenpoodle
Regular Member
i just figured that using U ratings made it easier for everyone to understand, seeing that most people use yonex racquets anyway.
the grip size has a bearing on the weight of a racquet, of course. thats why each U-rating is a range, giving them the opportunity to work within a set of tolerances. its easy to nail down a racquet within a 5 gram range, and makes it easier to work with various grip sizes without having to modify the actual racquet. so it isn't a surprise if grip sizes affect weight and balance of a racquet.
i dont' think many brands use the U-ratings. i know a few do, with slight variations. another example is the G-ratings for grips sizes.
the grip size has a bearing on the weight of a racquet, of course. thats why each U-rating is a range, giving them the opportunity to work within a set of tolerances. its easy to nail down a racquet within a 5 gram range, and makes it easier to work with various grip sizes without having to modify the actual racquet. so it isn't a surprise if grip sizes affect weight and balance of a racquet.
i dont' think many brands use the U-ratings. i know a few do, with slight variations. another example is the G-ratings for grips sizes.
SystemicAnomaly
Regular Member
Not familiar with the 2200 model but I can tell you that the Triple Threat family of Prince rackets were their top end frames until the M+ series came along. My Triple Threat (Warrior) and my lower end Prince frames have all been fairly lightweight (very maneuverable for defense) with plenty of power.
However, the bottom line is what racket suits your style of play & personal preference.
The M+ series racket like the M+ pro 85 is quite good for defense with the constant taper shaft design to give u the extra power, tried the racket and quite like it, Control and drop is good... Maybe u can check it out. overall prince racket seems to be on the light side.
If I tell you "the prince axis 100 is a terrible racket and you wasted your money.", what are you going to do?
Since you already have the racket, why not just string it and start playing it. It's fun to read and stuff but what really matters now is how the racket fits you -- and only you can answer that.
Since you already have the racket, why not just string it and start playing it. It's fun to read and stuff but what really matters now is how the racket fits you -- and only you can answer that.
nice
Ive found it a nice racket to play with just not used many others to have a decent opinion lol, but im happy with my buy.
Ive found it a nice racket to play with just not used many others to have a decent opinion lol, but im happy with my buy.