Hi every body i would like to have some information about the racquets from those brands . Im an advanced player and i play usually with yonex racquets but it's a bit expensive . I would like to have some reviews about those brands : Which is the best brand between Apacs , Protect .... Are the sensations good as a yonex ? is the quality good ? Which racquet you recommend for a single professionnal player ?( control and power ) Thx for your answers Ps : im at 27-28lbs
if you are an advanced player and mainly play singles, just stick with yonex. it's not like you have to buy a lot of duplicates (probably just 2 rackets) and not a high chance of you breaking your racket as well (not much clashing if you are playing singles and advanced player). apacs is good for their price. if yonex was tier 1, i would rank all the other brands you mentioned as tier 3.
try the panda racket, i wouldn't say its a singles racket... what are your specs? what do you like to do? personally i think an even balance or slight head heavy racket would be good singles... errr, arc 10? z-slash? if you are going for yonex look for those lol or try the ultra pro from panda. ppl say apacs is good for its price but i never tried it and idk about protect
according to you? i don't work for dinkalot or any of those other two malaysian brands and thus i don't have any bias towards any of them. but if you're trying to imply that protech, apacs, or even panda is up to par with yonex, then i honestly don't know what you've been smoking. i don't deny that those three "brands" make decent rackets. i even said apacs is very good bang for the buck. dinkalot isn't the only person with the resources to have access to manufacturers overseas. if you have read his post concerning coach "d" http://www.badmintoncentral.com/for...-That-Can-Take-40lbs.-String-Tension!/page255 then you would understand that most of the panda rackets out there are not "tier 1". besides, if you wanted an honest opinion on a product, you wouldn't ask someone who works for that company. i appreciate what dinkalot's dedication and hard work but if someone is asking for an unbiased opinion for the best option for their situation, then i stand by my suggestions. if you are an advanced player and play singles and looking for the best performance and quality possible, stick with yonex. best bang for your buck, go apacs. it's like saying that since hyundai is starting to come out with nice cars and more luxurious offerings that it is a tier 1 car company on par with mercedes.
Dont quite agree with u. I dun think Yonex quality is that good...i've seen numerous Yonex racquets cracked after a minor clash, whereas those apacs, protechs could withstand a hard clash with no damage at all....and even advanced/professional players do use an apacs as long as they are sponsored by them so it's definitely not classified under tier 1 or 3 or watever.....end of the day, we do know where Yonex racquets are manufactured from and it's only the branding that makes it so much more expensive
@ GT0ro So you're saying you have tried them? If that's the case then fine, you're entitled to your opinion - I just don't think you should go around criticizing anything unless you've actually tried it. Just for the record I never claimed any brand was as good or better than any other, and in fact I never post reviews here specifically because they could be considered biased. My honest opinion, is that there are no really elite brands any more, because racket development is fairly static. You'll see professional players sponsored by loads of different brands - Yonex, Li Ning, Victor, Carlton, Head, Wilson, Babolat, etc. If those brands are good enough for pros (even low ranking ones), then they're sure as hell good enough for you, me and anyone else on these forums.
so, what is your definition of tier one? good company brand? safe brand to choose? many people use it? they make good rackets? they are expensive? many pro use it? or ???
I can comment only on Apacs as I haven't tried Panda or Protech (sp?). And my experience with YY rackets extend only to mid-level rackets (though they were JP coded). I have found that Apacs' top end rackets (and that excludes their Yonex copies) have excellent construction and durability. I am an advanced-intermediate player (which I define as correct footwork, and correct wrist movement albeit all without the speed, power and precision of advanced players). I use bg65 or preferably bg70pro at 24 lbs, and use 95% plastic, 5% feather, 70% singles, 30% doubles & mix). The nice thing about the high-end Apacs is that you can see the specs on the frame and shaft construction, and the raw material specs correlate nicely with the dry characteristics of the racket. So 30, 40, 50 Tonne modulus will give increasingly high stiffness, and that Toray stuff is nice. I think Sir Dikalot's racket ratings reflect this. The subjective (and hence tough) part to evaluate is the "feel" of the racket. As an advanced player, you need to start by finding the stiff rackets, and then refine your choice based on weight and balance (and price). I would have to agree with the venerable panda when he says that increasing skill tends towards even balanced (and stiff, of course) racket. You mentioned that Yonex rackets are expensive, and I think it only makes sense that top end YY's approach ~250$ while top Apacs are ~100$ (US). After all, someone has to pay for all those sponsorships and marketing propaganda. Plastering all those tournaments and players can't be cheap. Assos, a swiss company that makes high-end cycling apparel has a new slogan which I think works well with Apacs: "Spronsor yourself".
I'm a decent player and I prefer the Panda T Pro over pretty much anything else I have played with that is currently out. I have ALWAYS used Yonex before and have tried hitting a few RLS's and some other brands. Only way to make up your mind is to try it. My take: Owned ArcZ - it's ok, feels a little whippy but not bad at all Own Ti-10 3rd gen - Great racket all around. Owned Arc7 - don't like the feel. Played with Arc10 - VERY head heavy for me (i'm mostly doubles player) but it can drop bombs. Played with Voltric 70 - little head heavy for doubles, has strange feel/vibration Played with NS9900 - very good racket for doubles, little unforgiving if mishitting but plenty of power. Armortec 800DE - my fav racket that they don't make anymore Panda Precision - very fast for doubles defense, shaft a little to soft for me but manageable Panda Trinity Pro - great all around racket, reminds me of Ti-10 1st gen but faster with just as much power. I say don't be afraid to try new rackets just because it doesn't say "Yonex" on it. Find someone local and hit a few and make your own decisions. I waited until Precision came out to decide to give Panda a shot. I'm also looking at some SOTX ones to try out so as good as the Panda is, I'm not shutting out other manufacturers because you never know when you find that racket that is perfect for YOU.
Right now I've used Yonex exclusively up to about 2 years ago when I started to experiment. Apacs are ok for the price but the performance wasn't there. I have a Panda T2 and while a good racket, not the best I've tried, which may just be racket preference and not the brand itself. Right now my go to racket is the Victor BS10, in my bag with me I have an Arc10, ArcZ, Ti-10 (3g), AT900P and AT900T. At home I have the NS9900, MP99, T2, Apacs T300, L70 and a few others. As a note, don't ever confuse durability with performance.... What do you think handles a car crash better? A Ford truck or a Ferrari? High end anything tend to be less durable which is a compromise with performance. Another good example are badminton strings, if you think a racket is better because it's more durable then I assume you also play with BG65 or BG70 instead of a higher performance, thinner string?
Durability vs performance "As a note, don't ever confuse durability with performance..." Though they are separate characteristics, I think they are related and that in most of life you can have both, though usually not at the extremes. (e.g. 9/10 for each of them may be reasonably easy to find compared to 10/10 for both) "I assume you also play with BG65 or BG70 instead of a higher performance, thinner string? " This sounds rather snobbish not because I use both exclusively, but because you are insinuating they are sub-par on performance. I don't doubt that there are better performing strings, but I do - and seriously at that - doubt that players less than at the elite level (say provincial/state caliber players and above) need (or even should be using) better performing but less durable strings. People decide to spend their money however they wish, but how often does one lose a match because they were using BG65/70 instead of thinner/better performing/less durable strings? It's the same top-gear, best-gadget, fastest-car mentality that leads to sales, but not much real improvement in skill. After all, you can perfect your driving skills on a Honda Civic, or train to go faster on a Shimano 105 bike without needing a Porsche or Dura Ace. My point being that the zeal to improve should at least be commensurate between player skill and equipment, if not biased to the athlete rather than machine. All that being said, I prefer BG70 Pro to 65 due to better grip. Now, if you know of similarly priced strings with similar durability (@25 lbs) that are significantly better performing, then I'm all ears. ps I do want to try Zymax someday...(and I've already tried BG80)
Durability can mean performance in some cases. In tournaments many players will choose strings that will last a whole rally instead of having the danger of it popping mid way through the point. It all depends on your needs. Try running a Ford truck in a baja rally event vs the ferrari and lets see who actually finishes the race. In fact the last LeMans the I seem to recall Pugeot being slightly faster but they all dropped like flies in the end due to mechanical failure. To win a race you have to be able to finish the race. Not saying that badminton rackets follow the same rules, but you can't arbitrarily state that durability <> performance because in many instances it is a very important component of it. For me strings it's a toss up (BTW I played with a BS10 and it wasn't a bad racket either). I like the power of NGB98 and durability is good as well, but the string is slippery. I have switched to Zm62 and Zm67 and will string up one of each to do direct comparison. So far Zm is a harder feeling string with more bite. Lasts quite a while too if you don't mis hit. I'm playing at 26lbs.
Durability vs performance "As a note, don't ever confuse durability with performance..." Though they are separate characteristics, I think they are related and that in most of life you can have both, though usually not at the extremes. (e.g. 9/10 for each of them may be reasonably easy to find compared to 10/10 for both) "I assume you also play with BG65 or BG70 instead of a higher performance, thinner string? " This sounds rather snobbish not because I use both exclusively, but because you are insinuating they are sub-par on performance. I don't doubt that there are better performing strings, but I do - and seriously at that - doubt that players less than at the elite level (say provincial/state caliber players and above) need (or even should be using) better performing but less durable strings. People decide to spend their money however they wish, but how often does one lose a match because they were using BG65/70 instead of thinner/better performing/less durable strings? It's the same top-gear, best-gadget, fastest-car mentality that leads to sales, but not much real improvement in skill. After all, you can perfect your driving skills on a Honda Civic, or train to go faster on a Shimano 105 bike without needing a Porsche or Dura Ace. My point being is that the zeal to improve should at least be commensurate between player skill and equipment, if not biased to the athlete rather than machine. All that being said, I prefer BG70 Pro to 65 due to better grip. Now, if you know of similarly priced strings with similar durability (@25 lbs) that are significantly better performing, then I'm all ears. ps I do want to try Zymax someday...(and I've already tried BG80)
Too many rackets out there to be compared to. How about listing out the yonex rackets u currently using + suites u and let people help u out ? thx For my past experiences, Yonex in my history ranked very lowly. I used 3 Yonex rackets but all ended up with swollen frame + playable yonex rackets are not cheap to start with. String broke nvm la, but frame swollen ? bye bye
