Here are the updated reviews (except the Racket Review, still working on it) until the original links are updated by the Admin. Some updated notes: 1) The Shuttle Review is obsolete and should not be used as a guide line. 2) The Sole Softec Regular (SSR) is the new best performance and comfort insole. Couple the SSR with SHB100s, you have, hands down the best performing badminton shoe. Please note the durability of the SSR has not been tested yet. 3) The APACS makes some excellent rackets. The Lethal 50, Tantrum 200, Nano Fusion 608, Visible Hollow 1800, and Nano Pro 9900 are additions to my new favorite rackets. Will go into the details and differences more later. Also most of it has been discusses in the APACS post. 4) The Ideal String: it's what you are used to. I started off using and loving BG66, BG85 and BG80. Then I switched to Ashaway string and initially, didn't like it as much. Now I'm used to Ashaway MP and MP-XL and prefer it over BG80 and BG85. The only Yonex string I feel is on par with MP is BG66. I'm sure if I started to use Gosen string, I would get used to it and start to prefer that. Bottom line: if you use a string long enough, you will grow accustomed to it and like it better than others. So find the best price/performance/durability ratio string and stick with it. 5) Grips: Panda is now a fan of replacement grips. With the exception of the price and more of a hassle to prep and put on, they just perform so much better and last longer than their overgrip counterparts. The Karakal and APACS Super PU type grips are the best but the Karakal have a tendency to bleed in color. This review is as obsolete as a wood racket.
I still see certain strings which have ratings which is based on 29lbs which is mis-leading and should have been redone to the current 27lbs. Can you truely say that it is up to date and accurate?
Where are you getting 29lbs.? And do you know what "~" means? It means "approximately". And yes, I can say it's truely updated. I updated the date. I have not re-tested 95% of the strings nor will I. And who knows, maybe my opinion has changed about some of the strings. Do I have to go over this, over and over, this is my opinion, if you do not like, don't read it. My main purpose for putting up these reviews again is because the original ones are down.
Sole Softec Regulars: http://www.yoursole.com/products/footbeds/softec/regular/ First-rate comfort and performance!
Pity that shuttle review went obsolete after all of that time and money and effort spent on it. Still, everything is still awesome and great for uninformed regular guys like me. Panda is awesome
Woo thanks for the reviews. I was having problems seeing the reviews in the stickies so this clears up a lot of the questions I had. Hope to see a racket review up there soon as well. Thanks again and keep up the great work.
On the net, you can always find the archives, if one really needs to. ~ doesn't mean anything since you are mis-leading since you reviewed most of the strings at 29, then later changing it to 27 then on. You should either clarify and point out which ones is at 29 and the ones which is done at 27, or entirely redo them. If you were helpful enough, you should re-test them. Lets not relate to the A/V world where I am an enthusiast and where reviews such that a change (ie. settings, bios version, you name it) can affect the bechmark or results of how a certain product performed. As for the reviewers there, they actually list changes with updated dated results. As an extra, they list both the previous and current data explicitly. Now I ask the same question to you,
Wow. I tend to agree with Dink on this one. It is his personal opinion, so it is as subjective as it gets. He shouldn't need to update his findings based on any determined scale that you wish to implement in order to keep things "up-to-date". He is not fooling anyone. He is giving his impression of products as he had tested them. Re-testing them would only give a more biased result, as he has since tested many other products; perhaps many that are better. For those, he would have ranked them higher anyway. It must already cost an exhorbitant amount of money to test them all in the first place. If you have the money, as your purchases of so many rackets, regardless of whether or not they are JP-coded, suggest, then perhaps you can do a review for us. When someone provides such information, it is for the benefit of the community and not their job. If he should have to change his methodology in his tests every time he switched his style of play, which it is evident he has, it would not truly illustrate the potential of any product, as he would favor one over the others due to the new alignment. He has already tried to keep this as objective as possible. Please understand that this is not a formal testing situation. I doubt that any vendor or researcher will be so inclined to do such rigorous testing on such a range of commercial goods as has been done thus far. There is no statistical relevance anyway, as products are graded individually and do not tend to be truly standardized.
I never mentioned fooling, however he's failing to clairify the strings which were tested using one than another = two different results. I'm technical, I will scruitinice discrepancies. Since he is a reviewer, reviewers should know how to list the data and testing methods properly. It's more about credibility and reliability. If I'm correct, there are people who know him personally that I also know who has informed me that Dinkalot has played a lot so, it wouldn't be a suprize how many strings he can do through, so it would be a matter of time when updated results can be produced.
You aren't considering the specifics of testing a certain racket with a certain string, and that the racket would need to be restrung then and there. If he had to test all those strings at different sessions, it would take quite a while. I'm sure he has plenty of stock in terms of some racket models, but that still wouldn't meet the necessary criteria you are asking for. It also wouldn't necessarily be suitable to jump from one combination to another all in a single session or even a few. But the point you're neglecting is that unlike shuttlecocks, products don't fluctuate in quality. They don't usually get updated themselves, but are replaced or succeeded by newer counterparts. It should, if not "would," make little difference.
I think this needs to be taken into a statistical perspective as well as a real world perspective. So this is basically testing statistical significance with two samples. The null hypothesis or the base conjecture is that the experience at 29 pounds is the same as at 27 pounds. You propose the alternative hypothesis, which is that the experiences are different. As Dink had been accustomed to the 29 pounds, he is now accustomed to the 27 pounds of tension. Therefore, there is no premise to justify your claim that there is a discrepancy. It is not statistically significant, and thus, the null hypothesis must be accepted. It is really a moot point, and you cannot truly measure his personal experience and quantify or qualify that it was/is different.
Sir Dink's reviews is very up to date and gave good insights on the performance of the equipments. Kudos... Good stuffs.
Yes there is a discrepancy because the experience or should I say setup of the review is based on a certain tension. Then changing the test method by lowering the tesion test other strings will provide different results. That would affect the strings performance and durability how they would of been rated assuming they were all done at the same tension. Now if I was completely clueless about strings and read the reviews assuming they were all done at 27, that in itself is mis-leading.
