Since no racket will do any milisecond of any of our smashes, clears etc and it's the player that at the end of the day will painstalkingly performed all the hardwork hitting the birdie while moving through all the corners of the court, understanding the correct techniques and how to apply such technique while playing together with proper footwork movement will be the fundamentals for all satisfactory hits. The fact that racket will influence the quality of our hits will only matter if the above parameters are constant and fully understood and the player is presented will the IDEAL racket that suits his style and playing techniques. Due to the differences of such preferences exist from one individu to another individu, an ideal racket weild in one player hand will not necessarily be an ideal racket in another player hand, therefore, you will still can deliver a satisfactory hits using a low end racket if its an ideal racket for you better than any high end that doesn't suits well with your preferences.
You make some good points (something you'll probably never say to me hehe) but let me reply with the following: 1. LCW obviously likes/prefers the VT80. 2. You say he has rejected the Z-Slash. 3. However, if LCW used the Z-Slash in practise, he would still be one of the best players in the world today. Why? 4. Simply because he has outstanding footwork/technique/conditioning, ant NOT because of what racket he's using. Anyway, hopefully my point has been made. I don't deny that certain players will like certain rackets more than others. What I'm trying to say (and perhaps sometimes I exaggerate, but I'm trying to hammer a point across hehe) is that the racket is probably the least important factor contributing to performance - footwork/technique/conditioning is much more important.
By the way, thunder.tw, what racket do you feel improves your performance and in what way? How exactly do you measure this performance? Could there be any bias to this measurement? Perhaps for this topics' sake, you could compare apacs and Yonex rackets you've used in the past/present? I also note that you said "the question isn't about relative importance of equipment versus other factors". I'm not sure why you've written that, as I personally think that is the "question" we should all be dwelling (more) on, rather than which racket will help me become a better player or improve performance.
I'm not here to argue that choice of racquet is a paramount factor and that isn't what I've been saying. What I am saying is that it is a factor and that there is a difference. My particular argument with you is your swarmy repition of same old platitutes I see time and time again. Wether you want to admit it or not Equipment choice and quality are important factors. If this wasn't so, the game would be played barefoot and we'd still be using wooden racquets. Now the topic of this thread is Apacs vs Yonex and which is better quality. Well for me Yonex is the better brand and they've proven themselves over the last couple of decades where Apacs has not. Maybe Apacs is starting to catch up, nothing is static but at this moment I don't think so. And, the market place would seem to back that up. There is a reason why Yonex is able to command a premium price in the market place.
Then we can agree on that. I'm glad you don't think (or at least you are implying reluctantly hehe) that choice of racket is not a "paramount" factor. Of course there is a difference (however small or big...in my opinion, the difference is very small particularly among comparable rackets), but the time and money many people place on racket quality/choice could be better served with dedicated training to improve footwork/technique/conditioning. In the end, that is what will make people play better badminton. You also seem to want to insert extremes into your "statements" like playing "barefoot". Not much one can say about that unfortunately.
What is the difference between two top players? I'll wager it's pretty minute. When ever you are competing regardless of the sport every little edge you can give yourself wether tangible or psycological is important. I'm curious why you think choosing a raquet would take away from any effort in improving any other aspect of your game? Surely your not implying that choosing a racquet is such an all consumming physical and mental task that it results in deficiencies in all other aspects of ones game? Is there really a choice to be made? One must choose between selecting a racquet OR working on fundamentals but, can't do both? Could you point out a player for me that could have been great but spent too much time selecting equipment?
All previous arguments aside, how many recreational members here actually practice besides playing? You read reviews all the time about improved smashes, drops, this and that straight after the first session. Not likely down to practice . Perhaps the point trying to be made by ssj is the more advanced your technique and physique get's the less difference the racket starts making in all shots. And by that in particular having different types of rackets for different styles of play (today I need more defense will use NS7000, tomorrow I will bring out the AT700 for more offense, etc.). But it should still be one that one feels comfortable with. You can probably make a 3x3 matrix with the general types and within each box there should be various choices from various brands. I mean how many top players use different models for different opponents or when they play level or mixed doubles .
Guenniiii, I wouldn't use the word fake as that would entail them calling it Apacs Voltric 80 and advertising it as an equal to features of a YY. This would be the Finapi 88 which has a very similar paintjob to the Voltric 80 but that's where it would end. http://www.badmintonbay.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=140 A closer clone would be Fleet Voltrant 85 http://cgi.ebay.com/FLEET-VOLTRANT-85-APACS-EDGESABER-10-BADMINTON-RACKET-/320699156311
So? We've had to endure post after post of some numbnuts making the same obvious point over and over again. Despite; 1. I don't recall ANYONE saying that racquet selection was paramount. 2. The fact that proper badminton fundamentals are more important than racquet selection is not some new revelation. It's a point that been made add nauseum on these boards for years. Your stating the obvious (we're talking 'sky is blue' territory here folks) there's nothing mysterious about what the point you are making. Furthermore, I'm not training for the Oylmpics or any other competition. I'm a badminton enthusist. I happen to like trying different racquets from time to time for the sake of trying them out and seeing how different raquets affect my game. Sometimes I'm disappointed (Apacs), sometimes I'm pleasently surprised (Victor). So I see a thread where somebody is asking about the relative quality of Acpacs and Yonex so having experience with both I give my opinion. Now some may disagree and that's cool at no time do I ever think my opinion is the last word on a subjective issue. In fact, sometimes I even learn something. For example, someone with more experience with Apacs might point out that they have more top end models that might be interesting to try. So, if I get a chance to come across such a model I'll remember this advice and give it a try. What I don't need is some condescending jerk making the same obvious (somewhat off topic) point repeatedly about how I should focus on my footwork/technique/conditioning if I want to improve my game. The plain fact of the matter is if I go from playing with a VT-80 to playing with a Victor BS-10 I will notice a difference in my play. Maybe not better, maybe not worse but certainly different.
Haha , yes a different type of racket that by chance is much better suited can be an eye opener (as well as different strings/tension). I guess the point perhaps was if you haven't trained you can't exactly have improved but the racket enhances certain aspects. Of course if your opponent has the ability to adjust his game you'd have to keep changing rackets all the way throughout the match .
That's another way of putting my point(s) across. And unfortunately we/I seem to have caused some "upset" and there is a danger to more "name calling". There's nothing extreme to any points I have made. They are simply opinions. If they are opinions you don't like, simply stop reading my posts (eg. put me on ignore), report to a moderator/admin, or just go play badminton (and work on footwork/technique/conditioning hehe) instead of spending time on subjective/"free voice" forums like these. Much more productive than resorting to insults and appearing to get angry/bitter, in my opinion. With regards to "frustrations" on reading posts and portrayed opinions, I used to get a little frustrated reading posts like "my smash is huge with this racket!", "my serve is so much flatter with this racket!", "drives are so much more precise with this racket!" etc. Now, I generally have a quiet chuckle - and since these are so "repetitive", I tend to chuckle a lot hehe. When was the last time a top player thanked his racket for winning a tournament? Regardless, I remember posting fairly recently that if you're (just) playing badminton for fun, you don't need to take any comments/posts on this forum seriously (or you can choose to, whatever tickles your fancy). I feel it's nice for some people to be reminded (plus there are always new members joining etc) that you can actually get (much more) enjoyment when you improve footwork/technique/conditioning and dwell less on racket choice/quality - it's certainly what I've personally experienced, hence my opinion. Anyway, I met with a "low intermediate" club member last night and he was using clone apacs rackets. I recommended to him to try the "non-clone" apacs rackets, as I felt they were at least more durable. I think they are generally nicer to play with too, although an "intermediate advanced" player I play with often seems to play just as well with his EdgeSaber 10 (clone of ArcSaber 10 I think) as with his Z-Slash and NS9900. In fact, sometimes I thought he played better. Anyway, just one of those little biased observations I have made that continues to support that (particularly or at least at "our" level) apacs generally plays just as well as Yonex, if not better.
I'm just going to futher voice my opinion, In the time that i've owned Apacs racquets, i've not broken one yet, and my last string of yonexs racquets have cracked at the frame (not due to clashing), i've barely had one lasting 6 months for the best part of 2 years. Now, I used to absolutely swear by Yonex racquets, never touched anything else. I was told to steer clear of forza (due to alot of uni friends using them - they break alot at the T-Joint, my coach is sponsored by them and says it's a known weak spot), so I started looking at alternatives. Apacs stood out due to their cost and a local club I went to were sponsored by them. At that point in time, I just needed some racquets to keep training with at the tail end of the season (most tournaments had finished). When I got my APACS racquets, I thought that it had a very different feel to yonex, definitely not worse. I even found after adjusting, that my playing was better- but also the knowledge that If I was to get careless at any point I wouldn't break down in tears about risking damage to a $200 dollar racquet (Figurative). The thing is, if my APACS racquets do break once every 6 months, they have no discernable playing difference, if anything it has improved my game because I can play more agressively with a cheaper racquet that in my personal opinion, performs just as well as a yonex. Now I understand that I may not be your typical badminton player, I have a very strong hitting power, so this may have something to do with it but in my situation the apparent "cheapness" observed from comments in this thread is only a positive in my eyes, for a performance that is pretty much blow for blow between the two brands. Now if I was to get my hands on a new top of the range yonex in a few days time and see if I played better, that would be interesting but I somehow doubt it will improve my game. Before anyone does tell me to improve my footwork & technique more blah blah blah, this is not the point of the thread surely- i'm quite tired of reading through 2 pages of less than relevant context.
Good post AimUk. That's certainly very similar to my experiences too. I had been using Yonex rackets since around 1990 and started trying apacs rackets around 2008. To my surprise, I felt that I played better with the apacs rackets - this was quite odd, considering I enjoyed using Yonex rackets for so long. However, I've recently acquired myself a Yonex Voltric 80 and I've been playing almost solely with it for the last 2 months or so. In the end, I've realised that both brands are excellent. I've never broken a racket in my life, so I can't really say which brand makes more durable rackets. In terms of performance, the smashing power I eventually got from the apacs Lethal 60/70 was pretty much just as good as the VT80. However, I think if I had to choose one, the VT80 would have the slight edge. Does this mean the VT80 (Yonex) is a "better" racket for smashing than the Lethal 60/70? In general, I don't think so, but perhaps for me, it is. If my smashing technique was different/better and more consistent, I would probably be able to give a much better and more accurate opinion. Fact is, if you clear the shuttle to the back of the court and I go for a jump smash, I doubt I would be able to obtain "maximum" shuttle speeds consistently. I think only the pros or semi-pros would be able to achieve this consistency. We also need to be careful when we're switching from a more head light to a more head heavy racket (or vice versa) and making comments on this. I think the timing and swing to obtain "maximum" shuttle speeds consistently on jump smashing (or whatever) is going to be (slightly) different with rackets of differing "head weight". I noticed this when I switched to my Lethal 70 (BP 285mm versus 305mm for the VT80) briefly - smashing was not nearly as hard as I remember it a few months back when I was using it regularly. The reason for this is probably because I have become so accustomed to using a racket with a BP of 305mm. I'm quite sure that if I went back to regularly playing with my Lethal 70, I would have the same "drop in smashing performance" if I suddenly switched to my VT80. I think in this case, it's a good illustration of technique playing a big role, rather than "blaming the racket". Anyway, for me, it's nice to see posts like AimUk commenting positively on apacs rackets - it's certainly the same feeling I have too.
I had apacs finapi 252 which lasted for 8 months with several clashes as I used to play with beginners. Racket was amazing, clear shots and drops. Stringed with bg65, 68ti. Good performance with 65. Apacs is better than yonex if compared in regards with price. You are getting a clone of major good rackets at lesser price than the original rackets Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk
I used to be sponsored by Apacs. The feeling on some of their models feel just as good as Yonex, but the build quality is terrible and I broke them frequently. They're fairly cheap though, so you get what you pay for. I got them for free so...
I read this thread because I have both brands. Yonex was the only brand I know last time till I was introduced Apacs. Yes for the price you pay, they were value for money. I also agree that being professional, the racket is not the uttermost piece of tool that will decide your game. Moreover, today most brands have whatever you need just at different price point. What happen if Apacs wish to sponsor you but you don't like their racket?
You can always request them to repaint whatever would be your preferred racket as an APACS racket that they want to promote in the market
