Basic Guide to Choose Racquet for Beginner
Underlying Principles
The following guidance in this thread is purely theoretical, and it shall always subject to the following salient considerations:
1. Personal preference is the utmost important issue
2. Game play characteristic is the second important issue
3. Last but not least… your personal budget
Kindly note that I ain’t expert in badminton, and just recently bought my personal racquet.
All Statements / tips / hints contained in this thread are retrieved and/or gathered from various websites.
Further query or discussion under this thread shall require assistance from other members in this forum.
2011 Yonex Racquet Chart
http://cdn-u.kaskus.us/58/k8p0pcsi.png
http://cdn-u.kaskus.us/58/ybu7j3ef.jpg
Understanding BALANCE POINTS
Link - http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...67#post1979367
I just found out a comprehensive article containing Balance Point of a racquet :D
Over the years I’ve noticed that a lot of people have taken different views over the question of balance point and have confused balance point with racquet weight. So I’ve tried to put together a few of my thoughts down and try to explain my take on it and hopefully clarify this important racquet property (I got a little carried away and wrote a little too much in the end!).
Balance point (BP) is basically the position of the centre of mass of the racquet, measured from the butt of the racquet handle.
This gives some indication as to whether it is deemed head heavy, head light or even balanced in its original state.
The overall length of modern racquets are generally around 665mm - 675mm but with most racquets now at the longer length of 675mm, here are my suggested BPs for these racquets.
Head Heavy (HH) > ~295mm
Even Balanced (EB) = ~285-295mm
Head Light (HL) < ~285mm
Obviously, this is just for guidance, in reality the classification is never as clear cut as this. For example, some may regard 300mm is still even balanced but at the higher end of the EB scale or <280mm to be considered HL. It is quite subjective.
The weight of a racquet is not the same as the balance. The weighting of racquets are generally in increments of 5g less than 100 grams and a racquet of any weight can have different balances. However a HH “U” weighted racquet and a HL “4U” racquet may be difficult to play with.
U: 95g
2U: 90g
3U: 85g
4U: 80g
We mostly feel the effects of a racquet’s balance through the weakest component of our stroke, our wrist/hand. Although it can affect the elbow, shoulder etc, we are more sensitive to its balance in our wrist/hand and in particular strokes that use predominately the wrist such as BH/FH drives, flick serves, BH net kill etc etc...
In other strokes such as a ForeHand clear/smash, that reliance on the wrist is reduced so we tend not to be affected by racquet balance as much, but is more a case of adjusting the timing of the stroke.
The conventional way of determining a racquet’s balance is to find the distance of its centre of mass from the butt end of the racquet. Indeed this is the way racquet manufacturers would determine the balance.
However there are some limitations to this method, as follows=
1.It is only applicable to a racquet that is not modified or altered from the original specification in any way.
2.It is a static test method.
Badminton racquets are seldom kept to the original specification throughout its life. Whether this is through replacing grips, grommets, enlarging the handle, adding weights, using different type/gauge strings etc. All these “changes” would affect the balance point of the racquet to some extent and may change its weight class (U’s).
The drawback with a static test, is that it does not take into account the aerodynamic effects of the racquet.
A head light racquet with poor aerodynamics that generates greater air resistance may hinder its ability to manoeuvre quickly and conversely, a head heavy racquet with good aerodynamics will improve its manoeuvrability to some extent. Given that most of us don’t have a wind tunnel, this factor is usually neglected but it does show that balance point is not the only consideration.
:run: