PDA

View Full Version : Best racquet on TW liquidation page?


protour280
01-15-2005, 08:12 PM
Just for fun, looking into experimenting with a new racquet, but I never pay full price for a frame. I bought my PT 280 for $60 each 3 or 4 years ago. Anyone else combing through the liquidation page looking for a good racquet for cheap? I hate to say that the one I am half way considering is the Triple Threat Bandit. But it weighs 10 oz. thats 2 full oz. less than my PT280, but the review was pretty good. They gave it a 79 on groundstrokes, then say its a good serve and volley racquet. What am I missing here? Anyone played this racquet?

python
01-15-2005, 08:44 PM
It hits like a 10 oz racquet...You just won't be able to get that satisfying crunch on the ball like you can with a 12 oz racquet. You definitely won't get the feel of a PT280 from a Bandit...

Why are you considering a change so dramatic? What are you trying to get out of a switch?

Ronaldo
01-16-2005, 05:10 AM
Ckout the ROK 102 or Cat 10

Kirko
01-16-2005, 09:32 AM
The Cat.-10 .

Deuce
01-17-2005, 12:07 AM
man - remember when there were only a few racquets on liquidation at any given time? Now there are dozens, thanks to the extremely short life of frames due to the racquet companies' very calculated and well planned obsolescence.

It's ridiculous.

devilish_duke
01-17-2005, 12:37 AM
The bandit is a nice racquet, but not if you're used to and hit with heavy racquets. Once my game evolved, I ended up hurting my hand with the bandit. Nowadays I use the POG mid.

python
01-17-2005, 06:41 AM
man - remember when there were only a few racquets on liquidation at any given time? Now there are dozens, thanks to the extremely short life of frames due to the racquet companies' very calculated and well planned obsolescence.

It's ridiculous.


I don't think there are any more than there were 2 or 3 years ago. I think TW has just adjusted to the times and is now offering more budget options to their customers than they used to.

It's not necessarily a bad thing for TW, either. Depending on how much they buy the liquidation sticks for, their profit margin might even be higher on a clearance frame than on a 'latest and greatest' one.

Deuce
01-17-2005, 10:45 PM
I was referring more to 10 or 15 years ago, when liquidation bins in tennis and sports shops contained only a few racquets - because, of course, 'planned obsolescence' had not yet reached tennis racquets, and we thus had the opportunity to become attatched and loyal to a particular model, which was on the store racks for several years - as compared to a mere few months today.

python
01-18-2005, 09:15 AM
Actually, even in the days of yore, racquet companies had their own tricks to sell more racquets. Virtually all the woodies were made identically, and the only way to differentiate their product was to sign a popular star and give them their own version of the house stick. Thus the Chris Evert Autograph was the same as the Billy Jean King frame and so on.

There has been no change between then and now. Racquet companies want to sell product as much today as in the past. The only difference is that their marketing and probably manufacturing is a great deal more sophisticated than it used to be.

Deuce
01-18-2005, 10:41 PM
"The only difference is that their marketing and probably manufacturing is a great deal more sophisticated than it used to be."

You say "more sophisticated"; I say "more dishonest"...

"There has been no change between then and now. Racquet companies want to sell product as much today as in the past."

No - they want to make a significantly greater profit today than they did 20, 30 years ago - the greed is much greater today - thus the 'paint jobs'; the dizzying multitude of models which change every 10 to 12 months; the empty promises of ever-'improved' technology, supposedly rendering a frame 'obsolete' within about a year of purchase, etc.

As I said, the overt 'planed obsolescence' so prevalent today was not part of the equation 20 years ago.

python
01-19-2005, 07:38 AM
No - they want to make a significantly greater profit today than they did 20, 30 years ago - the greed is much greater today - thus the 'paint jobs'; the dizzying multitude of models which change every 10 to 12 months; the empty promises of ever-'improved' technology, supposedly rendering a frame 'obsolete' within about a year of purchase, etc.

As I said, the overt 'planed obsolescence' so prevalent today was not part of the equation 20 years ago.

I just can't take that first statement seriously. Greed and the desire for big profits have been around since the first market opened in Mesopotamia thousands of years ago. Rockefeller, Mellon, Carnegie all made their fortunes during the 1800's. They could easily be described as greedy. Greed is hardly a unique phenomenon and it is NOT new to any industry, much less the tennis racquet industry.

Stories like Bjorn Bjorg's Bancroft/Donnay paintjob abound from the 1970's. Nothing has changed. As for planned obsolescence... perhaps. But that's no different from the wood era. The Pancho Gonzales model became the Vilas model became the ??? Companies want to sell product so they do whatever they can to make their offerings seem new and cool, so people will buy them.

It's a lot easier to produce a graphite racquet now than it was to make a woodie. That's why you see shorter product cycles (or planned obsolescence if you prefer the term). The world is a smaller and faster place than it was 30 years ago. Consumers have more choice now then they ever had before: more cars, more watches, and yes, even more tennis racquets.

Deuce
01-20-2005, 02:26 AM
... And apparently you've been convinced that a greater number of products equals better products. Well, that's what they tell us - uh... so.. it must... uh.. be true, then, huh?

You write as if I said that greed didn't exist 20 years ago. What I actually wrote - if you take the time to read my precise words - is that there is more greed today than there was 20 years ago. Seems pretty clear to me. How can you possibly misconstrue that - unless you do it deliberately?

While there may have been a few 'paint jobs' here and there 25 years ago, today there is an absolute plethora. Players ranked in the 200s get 'paint jobs' today. 25 years ago, only a handful of top players - if that - were associated with 'paint jobs'. But "nothing's changed"?

The more often you insist that "nothing has changed" in the past 20 or 30 years insofar as the selling of tennis racquets is concerned, the more I am convinced that you did not yet exist 20 or 30 years ago.

And yet you state that "nothing has changed", and then you yourself go on to list a series of significant changes.

One thing's for sure - Nothing Has Changed insofar as the futility of discussing this subject with you is concerned.

winks
01-20-2005, 04:41 AM
Best racquet on TW liquidation page?

Ckout the ROK 102 or Cat 10 (Volkl)

What about the Volkl Tour 7? I've aways preferred oversize thin-beam racquets and this one seems like a steal at only $59.99. Damn, you could buy two and still spend significantly less that what they want for the hyped-up newer models.

Anyone familiar with this stick?

Ronaldo
01-20-2005, 04:48 AM
Bought the Tour 7 and it never felt comfortable even after lowering tension to 50#. Use search to find more comments but its a bit light and stiff IMO that is why I left it out

TripleB
01-20-2005, 05:12 AM
Prince Triple Threat Bandit...my nephew (25 years old) bought this racquet. I played with it once and it was actually a very solid racquet. I could hit most of the shots I can hit with my POG mid. Excellent racquet for the price. Thundercloud is also a good racquet for the bucks. Two of my friends use that racquet and they play very well with it.

TripleB

Serve-And-Volley
01-20-2005, 05:58 AM
I would certainly not go the the TT Bandit I didn't like it at all. I would again suggest a racquets: the Yonex RDX-500 Mid or Midplus, to get a little weight I would go to the N-Code 6-1 90, or for just a godd all around racquet on the lighter side I would go with the Volkl Catapult 10. Hope that helps.

python
01-20-2005, 07:58 AM
... And apparently you've been convinced that a greater number of products equals better products. Well, that's what they tell us - uh... so.. it must... uh.. be true, then, huh?

Actually, I said consumers have more choice. And they do. If you want to argue better, criteria have to be set out ahead of time to make a decent assessment. Certainly, any modern graphite racquet (yes, even the hollow 10 oz frames) is more durable (= better?) than any of the woodies.

You write as if I said that greed didn't exist 20 years ago. What I actually wrote - if you take the time to read my precise words - is that there is more greed today than there was 20 years ago. Seems pretty clear to me. How can you possibly misconstrue that - unless you do it deliberately?

I don't know that it makes all that much of a difference, either way you look at it. The premise you're making is that 20 years ago, racquet companies were more pure or innocent. That's patently wrong. They're in business to make a buck, then and now.


While there may have been a few 'paint jobs' here and there 25 years ago, today there is an absolute plethora. Players ranked in the 200s get 'paint jobs' today. 25 years ago, only a handful of top players - if that - were associated with 'paint jobs'. But "nothing's changed"?

Well, I think I said marketing AND manufacturing is more sophisticated now. Clearly paintjobs are a progression from that. It's easier to make paintjobs, even for journeymen players. It's easier to run off a custom mold for a player like James Blake. You're mistaken if you think Wilson, etc. wouldn't have have thought this was ingenious back in the 1970's if they had the capability of doing so.


The more often you insist that "nothing has changed" in the past 20 or 30 years insofar as the selling of tennis racquets is concerned, the more I am convinced that you did not yet exist 20 or 30 years ago.


What's the relevance of my age either way? I think this falls under the ad hominem category of logical fallacies. But, OK, whatever.


And yet you state that "nothing has changed", and then you yourself go on to list a series of significant changes.

One thing's for sure - Nothing Has Changed insofar as the futility of discussing this subject with you is concerned.


Don't you think you're taking this a little too personally? I thought we were just having a fun discussion on TW's messageboard. I certainly didn't mean to tick anyone off.

radical tourist
01-20-2005, 09:30 AM
Volkl Tour 7 with about an ounce of lead to a strung weight of about 345 grams and a swingweight of 325-7. $60 racquet, $5 for the lead, $30 for professional balancing and it's still a bargain if you're looking for a player OS with great spin.

Deuce
01-20-2005, 11:41 PM
Actually, I said consumers have more choice. And they do. If you want to argue better, criteria have to be set out ahead of time to make a decent assessment. Certainly, any modern graphite racquet (yes, even the hollow 10 oz frames) is more durable (= better?) than any of the woodies.

I don't know that it makes all that much of a difference, either way you look at it. The premise you're making is that 20 years ago, racquet companies were more pure or innocent. That's patently wrong. They're in business to make a buck, then and now.

Well, I think I said marketing AND manufacturing is more sophisticated now. Clearly paintjobs are a progression from that. It's easier to make paintjobs, even for journeymen players. It's easier to run off a custom mold for a player like James Blake. You're mistaken if you think Wilson, etc. wouldn't have have thought this was ingenious back in the 1970's if they had the capability of doing so.

What's the relevance of my age either way? I think this falls under the ad hominem category of logical fallacies. But, OK, whatever.

Don't you think you're taking this a little too personally? I thought we were just having a fun discussion on TW's messageboard. I certainly didn't mean to tick anyone off.

I recall previous 'discussions' with you on this subject being of the same flavor as this one.

Well, at least we both agree that things have changed significantly in the past 20 or 30 years - even if you say they haven't, your examples clearly indicate that they have.

TripleB
01-21-2005, 04:54 AM
Serve-and-Volley...wasn't the name of the post "Best racquet on TW liquidation page?" I didn't see the Yonex RDX-500 Mid, Midplus, or the N-Code 6-1 90 on the liquidation page. If they are I'm going to be very angry since I just ordered two of the RDX-500 MP racquets :)

TripleB

python
01-21-2005, 05:29 AM
I recall previous 'discussions' with you on this subject being of the same flavor as this one.

Well, at least we both agree that things have changed significantly in the past 20 or 30 years - even if you say they haven't, your examples clearly indicate that they have.

Technology and marketing have changed, Deuce. Capitalism hasn't.

And if this discussion smacks of the same flavor to you, I'd say that's rather up to you. Two can disagree without being disagreeable, right?

Gaines Hillix
01-21-2005, 06:27 AM
Prince Triple Threat Bandit...my nephew (25 years old) bought this racquet. I played with it once and it was actually a very solid racquet. I could hit most of the shots I can hit with my POG mid. Excellent racquet for the price. Thundercloud is also a good racquet for the bucks. Two of my friends use that racquet and they play very well with it.

TripleB

I agree with BBB on the Bandit and Thundercloud. I think Prince made some decent but under appreciated frames 3-4 years ago. They are not too stiff and have a decent balance(not head heavy). They're good platforms for customization too if they end up being too light for you. But, they are good frames for the price, especially now. I don't see how anyone can compare them to an RDX500 given the original poster is obviously looking for a good deal on a frame. Not everyone can afford a $200 racquet.