Ahh, lots of unknown players for the US side. I am sure you can join in and get to second or third round this year .
Yeah, but theory do have observations as proof. What he provided has no observation nor any proof. Only poof...
since u asked this question it mean u dunno. how can we trust your feather vs plastic comparison on how easy to adapt? http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8337&highlight=cab+explosion plasma vs lcd? a dumb question without condition. i'll take the 102" plasma if it is free clincher or tubular? if u r rich and have a repairmen following you around, tubular of course.
Going way off topic here... I'm not going to even go into the iso vs oval. Sure, I'd take the plasma too. Just wait, someone will pipe in about LCD. I had cheap access to tubulars direct from Vittoria and Clement and I was the repairman but I still chose clincher. Let's see how far off we can go. Red mastik or clear?
I don't know if you have any inside on Yonex sales and profit figures for different products. I doubt they make more money from their AS shuttles than the mavis series. considering the manufacturing cost of a molded plastic mavis margins for these must be really high with the prices the charge for a half doz. If you have any evidence that the profit margins are higher with AS-30 for example than mavis350 bring them forward Personally I think they make loads of money from Mavis shuttles, and they have no ireal economic insentive to improve these (ie use more high-tech and expensive manufacturing process), as the market is accepting those low standard shuttles (especially in US/CAN/EU) I guess you try to say, oil companies likes plastic And turning for badminton pros for opinions on badminton equipment is dumb??? Who would you considere to be an authority on how a shuttle should perform, in terms of speed, flight etc. is then? My expereince is the opposite actually.. Plastic players often smash very flat because the pure speed of the shuttle is the winning factor, not the angle (which is usually more important than raw speed using feathers) and seldom or never jump-smashes. I think the rubber boot comparison is quite valid actually.. not really exhaggerated.. a good runner will beat a poor one using rubber boots, but its properties are not as good as real spike-shoes for track&field running. If a pop of lobster cost $1.125 and a pop of file mignon costs $1.3 and a pack of french fries cost $1.5 (with two free refills)...... I seriously would consider the lobster and file mignon /Twobeer
Okay, let's settle this by having TwoBeer, ph_leung and Taneepak Vs. Cooler play friendly games under a controlled environment: three games with feather and three games with nylon.
Pete, this cant settle the thread's question. should be 3 games using Mavis 300, then 3 games using Mavis 350.
Maybe Cooler is feeling a bit embarrassed to be caught with "his pants down" (now seen to be a plastics man) and is trying to defend the indefensible.
I think you are making the wrong assumptions in your 101 econ, if you think that the Japan produced Yonex AeroSensa shuttles have a big market share in China etc. Even over here brands like RSL is more common for clubs based on pure price issue with the Yonex shuttles. My impression is that Yonex more or less dominates the market for plastic shuttles. So without any "real" sales figures I would not be so hasty to draw the conclusions about Yonex economy, as you! I played games using plastic against players on par and better than me as well. And the unanimous conclusion is that the game becomes VERY different than a normal feather game, due to the heavy feel and flat trajectory of the palstic shuttle. and dumbs the game down, and isn't as fun at all to play. Most badminton players have probably tried using plastic shuttles. So if your statements that they are "as good" and last 10-15 times longer holds true.. I am pretty convinced most active players would have switched over to plastics already.. Just the fact that this have not happend in 50 years, should tell you these shuttles have some drawbacks.... I don't think anyone here has argued that a weak player would beat a good just because you use bad shuttles??? A good player would beat a poor using a squash racket to play badminton.. Does this prove squash racket are as good to play badminton with as badminton-rackets???? Your math examples are not very impressive Assumed_Plastic_lifespan x price difference of non_related_food = price_difference_of_shuttles Applying yor assumed 10x my example would be: As mentioned many times before.. If it was such a huge econmical difference, and negliable performance diference, then we would see plastic being used more widely in poor countries than in wealthy.. In reality it seems to be the exact opposite. /Twobeer
