View Full Version : TW playtest ratings are overrated

07-16-2009, 01:59 PM
They rated the aeropro cortex higher than the original aeropro. Same goes with the pure drive. They rate the pure storm tour higher than the pure control, but I heard they're essentially the same sticks. And as far as I see, they underrated the aerostorm, which I think is a great racket. On the other hand, the k90 receives more topspin rating than the aeropro.

The ratings generally increase as new rackets come out, which is suppose to urge the buyers to buy the new ones that the pros use and forget the old ones. As far as I see it, it's a business scheme to get buyers more psyched about their new expensive rackets. I mean you don't actually trust the ratings do you?

07-16-2009, 02:02 PM
Why did you say anything?

Now you have to watch out for Chris Edwards breaking into your house at night to 'silence' you. EVIL SMILEY FACE.

While I pray that Kana Ribultan will break into my house at night. REALLY EVIL SMILEY FACE.

07-16-2009, 02:30 PM
There are several possibilities. Adding to what you wrote, I would also mention that

1) The playtesters are not always the same group of individuals.

2) Even with the same playtester; over the years, the playtester's preferences may change.

3) Like comparing different eras, a 2009 review ratings are likely to be different than that from 2003.

07-16-2009, 02:41 PM
As far as I see it, it's a business scheme to get buyers more psyched about their new expensive rackets. I mean you don't actually trust the ratings do you?

Well, if it's a business scheme to get buyers psyched about new expensive racquets, then someone better tell that to the team that did the Adidas Barricuda review: http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/ABR/ABRReview.html I don't think the ratings they gave this racquet is going to make many people buy it. So I don't believe it's a business scheme.

And yes, I do trust their ratings. Because when it comes down to it they know a lot more about (and have played with a lot more) racquets than either you or I do.

Who else you gonna trust...Tennis Magazine? :grin:


07-16-2009, 02:53 PM
This has been discussed over and over- but their ratings give you a better idea of how an individual raquet performs- good spin, serves ok, good for two handed back hand. Etc.... They are not so great when comparing raquet to raquet and frames back to the early days of tw, some of the reviewers change and I am certain their style and prefernces improve over time.... So to say a k90 is a better raquet than an apdc because it got a 89 overall compared to 85 or a spin rating of 90 versus a 87 misses the point and reads alot into the process--- this isn't science just some opinions on how a frame performs- the numbers just give you a quick look at the relative strengths and weaknesses of an individual frame and are of lesser value when comparing different raquets.

07-16-2009, 03:10 PM
The review does give you a rough idea how a frame would perform.

Agree with you again, DonBot.

07-16-2009, 03:32 PM
I just thought it was funny how they said the AST was trouble for people with a 2hbh. I know plenty of people who hit a killer 2hbh with that racquet.

07-16-2009, 04:14 PM
It was mentioned that those with 2 handed backhands should watch out, but that was just from one guy right? It's not like the whole play test team agreed it was difficult to use the 2 handed backhand (then again, I don't recall if any of the other play testers use 2 handed backhands so that might be why). I wouldn't really decide on how a racquet performs from an area based on one opinion, I guess that's just where demoing comes in.

07-16-2009, 04:27 PM
What i dont get is how the MG prestige mid has a 75 overall rating, which is considerably low, when it seems like the mayority of players think its a great racquet.

07-16-2009, 04:52 PM
Very true. But they are basically an outlet and their main goal is to sell no matter what. I feel like they should get a more diverse group of playtesters from 3.0 to 5.0. A lot of them seem like 3.0-3.5 especially from the video of their strokes. I don't necessarily believe that they are 4.5 when they say they are. They used to be harder on racquets and nothing receive higher than 8/10. I felt like a good score back a few years ago would be 7.6/10.

07-16-2009, 05:55 PM
I found the reviews helpful, but not definative. By that I mean you have to tell where they are coming from and the numbers alone don't give it to you. Advanced players are going to like and feel more comfortable with a "player's" racquet. There are some buzz words that seemed to help me. Control=player's powerful=tweener or beginners need to generate power=player short swing=tweener and the like. I think that is why they provide the player's rating in the review. Also, often there will be different male, female preferences. If you are an all courter then often the all courter review will be closer to what you want to know, than from a baseline basher. Usually there is an assortment of types of players in a review. These are generalities, but I have found them helpful to better understand reviews.

07-16-2009, 06:26 PM
yeah they are helpful. you can find some good advice on the different opinions. but as I wrote before they are flawed with the scoring system. Out of 100 does not seem right and when you compare reviews it is huh? TW of course wants to review and promote at the same time.

07-16-2009, 08:32 PM
The reviews are nothing more than an opinion piece. The "ratings" are useless totaled together and only have meaning on the individual level of the reviewer and how a reader identifies with certain reviewers.