PDA

View Full Version : Asian BLX 95


tlm
01-28-2012, 05:41 AM
I am using a asian blx 90 right now which is a nice racket. But i am wondering about the asian 95. Has anyone used this racket?

RogerRacket111
01-28-2012, 08:46 AM
The US BLX 95 is lighter than A BLX 90 why go for asian

tlm
01-28-2012, 08:58 AM
The US BLX 95 is lighter than A BLX 90 why go for asian

I tried both of the US blx 95 rackets and they were both to powerful for me. That is what i like about the asian blx 90 that i am using now, it is lighter to swing plus has better control than the US version.

So i was hoping that the asian blx 95 is similar, but with a little more spin production. The problem is i don't know where i can demo an asian version blx90, i know where to buy one but can't demo.

tlm
01-30-2012, 06:01 AM
Is there anyone out there that has used the asian blx 95?

corners
01-30-2012, 09:54 AM
Yeah, I've hit with the Asian and US versions of the BLX 6.1 95, both 16x18s. I really liked the crisp, lively response of the 12.5 ounce US version but found the 11.5 ounce sharp, rigid and "low-powered" in comparison.

I didn't spec out the Asian I hit with, but various sites have the swingweight in the low 320s. The US version varies widely, due to Wilson QC, from low 320s to high 330s. Looking at the static weights of the US vs. Asian versions we can see that the US version has quite a lot more weight in the handle, in the butt in this case, than the Asian version. This really changes how the two swing and the feeling of stability or lack of it when hitting the ball.

Since both versions have the same flex ratings, the heavier, more polarized US version plows through the ball and that stiffness is welcome, while the Asian version just felt stiff and rigid.

In general, I concluded that much of the magic of the 6.1 95, which have always been rather heavy, high-swingweight and very headlight sticks (all factors that make a frame feel softer than it's flex rating would suggest) is its weight distribution. In comparison, the Asian version just felt like another stiffish tweener, but with a smaller head.

The BLX95 is getting quite a lot of love in a couple threads right now, with posters praising it's easy power and spin generation. I think this is down to the concentration of mass in the upper hoop. For highly rotational swingpaths, like on serve and modern, whippy groundstrokes, the maximum power point of a racquet is toward the top of the hoop. The US BLX95 is among the most powerful racquets on the market on impacts above the middle of the hoop. TW University tests the "power potential" - the percentage of impact speed retained as outgoing shot speed - of nearly every racquet that comes onto the market. Thanks to Wilson's poor QC on this model, we can actually see how the Asian BLX95 might perform on these tests (even though TW doesn't deal with the Asian models). TWU tested the 16x18 and the 18x20 variants. The 16x18 they tested had the "on-spec" swingweight of 338, the 18x20 had a very low (for this model) swingweight of 324.

Comparing the power potential maps of these two sticks shows us that the 338 stick is much more powerful generally and particularly high in the hoop:

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/5347/blx95comparison.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/252/blx95comparison.jpg/)

(BTW, there is no reason to think that 16x18s typically have high swingweights and 18x20s have low swingweights. The two frames tested by TWU just happen to represent the range of Wilson's poor QC.)

The SW 338 stick has power potential of 41.1% in the middle and the SW 324 has 39.6%. Since power potential in the center of the strings is roughly proportional to swingweight, this is completely normal - the two frames differ by 14 swingweight units and their power potentials differ by 15 power potential units (1.5%). But if you look above, to the impact locations 2 inches above the center, you see that the 338 stick has power potential about 32% and the 324 stick has 29.5%, a difference of 2.5%. From this we can infer that the 338 stick has more mass high in the hoop (10&2, 11&1 and/or 12 o'clock). It is more powerful than the swingweight would suggest. We know that it has more mass in the head (because the swingweight is higher) and looking at how much more powerful it at the top of the hoop we can easily conclude it's because that extra mass ended up there in the manufacturing process.

So, I would also think that the Asian version, having a lower swingweight and thus less mass in the hoop, would have a power map more similar to the 324 swingweight stick tested by TWU. If you compare that 324 stick to others in the same swingweight range you'll find that the BLX95 isn't that spectacular - there are lots of racquets that are more intrinsically powerful and that have more powerful upper hoops. I think it's those extra 3-4 grams in the hoop of BLX95s that spec out with high swingweight that gives these frames the plow and power that players like. I wouldn't expect to find those qualities in the Asian version, and when I hit with it I did not. I think there are better frames in that weight range than the ABLX 95.

tlm
01-30-2012, 10:34 AM
Yeah, I've hit with the Asian and US versions of the BLX 6.1 95, both 16x18s. I really liked the crisp, lively response of the 12.5 ounce US version but found the 11.5 ounce sharp, rigid and "low-powered" in comparison.

I didn't spec out the Asian I hit with, but various sites have the swingweight in the low 320s. The US version varies widely, due to Wilson QC, from low 320s to high 330s. Looking at the static weights of the US vs. Asian versions we can see that the US version has quite a lot more weight in the handle, in the butt in this case, than the Asian version. This really changes how the two swing and the feeling of stability or lack of it when hitting the ball.

Since both versions have the same flex ratings, the heavier, more polarized US version plows through the ball and that stiffness is welcome, while the Asian version just felt stiff and rigid.

In general, I concluded that much of the magic of the 6.1 95, which have always been rather heavy, high-swingweight and very headlight sticks (all factors that make a frame feel softer than it's flex rating would suggest) is its weight distribution. In comparison, the Asian version just felt like another stiffish tweener, but with a smaller head.

The BLX95 is getting quite a lot of love in a couple threads right now, with posters praising it's easy power and spin generation. I think this is down to the concentration of mass in the upper hoop. For highly rotational swingpaths, like on serve and modern, whippy groundstrokes, the maximum power point of a racquet is toward the top of the hoop. The US BLX95 is among the most powerful racquets on the market on impacts above the middle of the hoop. TW University tests the "power potential" - the percentage of impact speed retained as outgoing shot speed - of nearly every racquet that comes onto the market. Thanks to Wilson's poor QC on this model, we can actually see how the Asian BLX95 might perform on these tests (even though TW doesn't deal with the Asian models). TWU tested the 16x18 and the 18x20 variants. The 16x18 they tested had the "on-spec" swingweight of 338, the 18x20 had a very low (for this model) swingweight of 324.

Comparing the power potential maps of these two sticks shows us that the 338 stick is much more powerful generally and particularly high in the hoop:

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/5347/blx95comparison.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/252/blx95comparison.jpg/)

(BTW, there is no reason to think that 16x18s typically have high swingweights and 18x20s have low swingweights. The two frames tested by TWU just happen to represent the range of Wilson's poor QC.)

The SW 338 stick has power potential of 41.1% in the middle and the SW 324 has 39.6%. Since power potential in the center of the strings is roughly proportional to swingweight, this is completely normal - the two frames differ by 14 swingweight units and their power potentials differ by 15 power potential units (1.5%). But if you look above, to the impact locations 2 inches above the center, you see that the 338 stick has power potential about 32% and the 324 stick has 29.5%, a difference of 2.5%. From this we can infer that the 338 stick has more mass high in the hoop (10&2, 11&1 and/or 12 o'clock). It is more powerful than the swingweight would suggest. We know that it has more mass in the head (because the swingweight is higher) and looking at how much more powerful it at the top of the hoop we can easily conclude it's because that extra mass ended up there in the manufacturing process.

So, I would also think that the Asian version, having a lower swingweight and thus less mass in the hoop, would have a power map more similar to the 324 swingweight stick tested by TWU. If you compare that 324 stick to others in the same swingweight range you'll find that the BLX95 isn't that spectacular - there are lots of racquets that are more intrinsically powerful and that have more powerful upper hoops. I think it's those extra 3-4 grams in the hoop of BLX95s that spec out with high swingweight that gives these frames the plow and power that players like. I wouldn't expect to find those qualities in the Asian version, and when I hit with it I did not. I think there are better frames in that weight range than the ABLX 95.


Thanks for the great reply, your right heavier versions have more power. I am using the asian version blx 90. What i like about it is the lower power compared to the US version.

My hitting partner uses the US version blx90 with the same string set up as mine. When we change rackets i instantly notice the added power and plow through of his racket.I love the slice backhand and solid feel of it but my forehands carry to long.

While he says that he notices the lack of power mine has and says that he has to hit through the ball more to get the depth and power he is used to. But he is more of a flat hitter and i am a loopy top spin hitter.

Which i know it probably seems like my strokes would not match up with a 90 sq. inch racket but with 18 gauge poly it works pretty good. The stringbed does not start to trampoline after 3 hours like they do on larger rackets. And when i get short balls i am so much more consitent at attacking them with this stick. I am just curious about the asian 95, because i thought that maybe it would have just a little more power and spin but be close to the 90.

Veninga
01-30-2012, 10:43 AM
I just bought one, strung with Sensation 25.

Nice racket but for me a tad too heavy. Its 327 grams strung, swingweight around 327 (ill guess). Very nice and solid racket. Nice spin potential and for me very solid on serve. Flat or kick, both are good.

But just a bit too heavy for me to play for 2 or more hours. So on the classified forum. If you are interested, youll find it.

corners
01-30-2012, 10:51 AM
Thanks for the great reply, your right heavier versions have more power. I am using the asian version blx 90. What i like about it is the lower power compared to the US version.

My hitting partner uses the US version blx90 with the same string set up as mine. When we change rackets i instantly notice the added power and plow through of his racket.I love the slice backhand and solid feel of it but my forehands carry to long.

While he says that he notices the lack of power mine has and says that he has to hit through the ball more to get the depth and power he is used to. But he is more of a flat hitter and i am a loopy top spin hitter.

Which i know it probably seems like my strokes would not match up with a 90 sq. inch racket but with 18 gauge poly it works pretty good. The stringbed does not start to trampoline after 3 hours like they do on larger rackets. And when i get short balls i am so much more consitent at attacking them with this stick. I am just curious about the asian 95, because i thought that maybe it would have just a little more power and spin but be close to the 90.

I also play with an Asian 90 - the K version. So I know where you are coming from in liking the extra spin capability. I think that the Asian 90s play like lighter versions of the US 90s. The weight distribution was skillfully "scaled-down" so they swing similarly and hit a pretty good ball, despite lacking the plow of the US versions. The Asian 95 wasn't as good a translation, IMHO. I don't think you'll find much benefit in going from 90 to 95 in this case. You'll lose feel and comfort and won't really gain much in terms of power or spin. That's my two cents, anyway. If you have the option to demo you should go for it, though.

Power Player
01-30-2012, 11:21 AM
I tried both of the US blx 95 rackets and they were both to powerful for me. That is what i like about the asian blx 90 that i am using now, it is lighter to swing plus has better control than the US version.

So i was hoping that the asian blx 95 is similar, but with a little more spin production. The problem is i don't know where i can demo an asian version blx90, i know where to buy one but can't demo.

I think the trick here is the US version has massive spin (the 16x18 ), but you have to have the racquet head speed. The balance and whippiness luckily helps out a lot with generating it.

I would imagine that the asian will give you more spin since you will be able to get that racquet moving very fast. The only bummer is you will lose the weight behind the ball, and that IMO, is what makes the 6.1 so awesome.

tlm
01-30-2012, 01:33 PM
I think the trick here is the US version has massive spin (the 16x18 ), but you have to have the racquet head speed. The balance and whippiness luckily helps out a lot with generating it.

I would imagine that the asian will give you more spin since you will be able to get that racquet moving very fast. The only bummer is you will lose the weight behind the ball, and that IMO, is what makes the 6.1 so awesome.

You are right PP you do lose the weight behind the ball with the asian version. But i love the 11.7 ounce weight and 7 points head light balance. I can use the heavier US model but it will start to feel a little heavier after an hour or so and i won't get the same whip as the lighter one.

Also i agree that the US version blx95 does produce massive spin, but for me to much power. I do use a lot of racket speed with a lot of top spin, but the US version of the 90 or 95 just makes my forehand carry to deep. I guess i should cut back on the big cuts some but i can't do that for long.

tlm
01-30-2012, 01:41 PM
I also play with an Asian 90 - the K version. So I know where you are coming from in liking the extra spin capability. I think that the Asian 90s play like lighter versions of the US 90s. The weight distribution was skillfully "scaled-down" so they swing similarly and hit a pretty good ball, despite lacking the plow of the US versions. The Asian 95 wasn't as good a translation, IMHO. I don't think you'll find much benefit in going from 90 to 95 in this case. You'll lose feel and comfort and won't really gain much in terms of power or spin. That's my two cents, anyway. If you have the option to demo you should go for it, though.


Thanks for the reply i figured there had to be some players here who used one. Your right they skillfully scaled the weight, the asian 90 swings great. It sounds like by what you are saying i should just stay with the 90.

I just wish my racket would produce a little more power and spin, but not as much as the US version. Seems like when i play guys that hit at just moderate speeds my stick works great, but when facing bigger hitters if i am just a little late i will give up to many sitters.

sunof tennis
01-30-2012, 02:45 PM
I also play with an Asian 90 - the K version. So I know where you are coming from in liking the extra spin capability. I think that the Asian 90s play like lighter versions of the US 90s. The weight distribution was skillfully "scaled-down" so they swing similarly and hit a pretty good ball, despite lacking the plow of the US versions. The Asian 95 wasn't as good a translation, IMHO. I don't think you'll find much benefit in going from 90 to 95 in this case. You'll lose feel and comfort and won't really gain much in terms of power or spin. That's my two cents, anyway. If you have the option to demo you should go for it, though.

I agree. The 90 and 95 are both great raqcuets but play differently. It may be too light for you, but the new PS95BLX will play closer to your AK90 than the 6.1 will. I have hit with both. The PS95 needs some weight, but has nice feel.

corners
01-30-2012, 02:59 PM
Thanks for the reply i figured there had to be some players here who used one. Your right they skillfully scaled the weight, the asian 90 swings great. It sounds like by what you are saying i should just stay with the 90.

I just wish my racket would produce a little more power and spin, but not as much as the US version. Seems like when i play guys that hit at just moderate speeds my stick works great, but when facing bigger hitters if i am just a little late i will give up to many sitters.

I think this is probably an issue of not making good contact - missing the sweetspot - when facing faster balls. That is where a larger headsize shines, of course, and why 90s are considered "unforgiving". I'm planning on demoing several 98s this spring that appear to be very forgiving of off-center hits. It used to be that only Babolat made mid plus racquets with twistweight (measure of how difficult it is for the ball to twist the racquet on off-center shots and also tells you how powerful the frame will be on shots outside the center of the stringbed) of greater than 13. But manufacturs are figuring out how to perimeter weight thin-beamed frames too, and now we have racquets like the Donnay Gold 99, Volkl Organix10 325, Becker Melbourne and Pure Storm Tour GT that have twistweights of 14 or more and have similar specs as your ABLX90. Donnay's Gold and Platinum 94s are also much better than your current stick in this regard.

(The ABLX90 has a twistweight around 11.5-12, typical of mids.)

High swingweight sticks will also have bigger sweetzones, but then you lose the headspeed and spin you like. The only other way to get stability and speed on off-center shots is with high twistweight.

tlm
01-30-2012, 05:55 PM
I think this is probably an issue of not making good contact - missing the sweetspot - when facing faster balls. That is where a larger headsize shines, of course, and why 90s are considered "unforgiving". I'm planning on demoing several 98s this spring that appear to be very forgiving of off-center hits. It used to be that only Babolat made mid plus racquets with twistweight (measure of how difficult it is for the ball to twist the racquet on off-center shots and also tells you how powerful the frame will be on shots outside the center of the stringbed) of greater than 13. But manufacturs are figuring out how to perimeter weight thin-beamed frames too, and now we have racquets like the Donnay Gold 99, Volkl Organix10 325, Becker Melbourne and Pure Storm Tour GT that have twistweights of 14 or more and have similar specs as your ABLX90. Donnay's Gold and Platinum 94s are also much better than your current stick in this regard.

(The ABLX90 has a twistweight around 11.5-12, typical of mids.)

High swingweight sticks will also have bigger sweetzones, but then you lose the headspeed and spin you like. The only other way to get stability and speed on off-center shots is with high twistweight.


Ya your right the larger sweet spot of the mp rackets does help on off center hits. But when i attack on the short balls with mid plus rackets i have to be more careful to not hit long, but with my 90 i can let it rip and rarely miss.

I think the 90 just naturally brings my trajectory down which definitely helps me when attacking. I have a radical ww forehand that sometimes wants to go higher than i want when going after sitters.

I guess it goes back to the same old story and that is you can't get everything in one racket, even though i keep trying.

tlm
01-30-2012, 05:58 PM
I just bought one, strung with Sensation 25.

Nice racket but for me a tad too heavy. Its 327 grams strung, swingweight around 327 (ill guess). Very nice and solid racket. Nice spin potential and for me very solid on serve. Flat or kick, both are good.

But just a bit too heavy for me to play for 2 or more hours. So on the classified forum. If you are interested, youll find it.

Are you talking about an asian blx 95?

Jcarlisle2
01-30-2012, 08:18 PM
Are you talking about the blx six one 95 without amplifeel or the blx tour 95?

If the asian six one 95,

I use them.

They are great rackets with great control and spin, but not enough power for me.

My strings main alu power crosses synthetic gut duraflex prince

tlm
01-31-2012, 05:27 AM
Are you talking about the blx six one 95 without amplifeel or the blx tour 95?

If the asian six one 95,

I use them.

They are great rackets with great control and spin, but not enough power for me.

My strings main alu power crosses synthetic gut duraflex prince


Yes the asian six one 95, i would love to demo one.

athleticstennis
01-31-2012, 09:21 AM
Corners,

Which other frames you think are better in the weight range?

tlm
01-31-2012, 09:40 AM
Anyone have an asian blx95 for sale?

athleticstennis
01-31-2012, 01:31 PM
I have one blx 95 of a sw of about 320 strung with gut poly than I can sell you. Let me know if you are interested.

Power Player
01-31-2012, 02:50 PM
I have one blx 95 of a sw of about 320 strung with gut poly than I can sell you. Let me know if you are interested.

One of mine is setup the exact same with the same sw. Incredible setup.

tlm
01-31-2012, 06:00 PM
I have one blx 95 of a sw of about 320 strung with gut poly than I can sell you. Let me know if you are interested.

I think you are talking about a US version aren't you?

athleticstennis
01-31-2012, 06:12 PM
Yes, but with a low swingweight so you have less power. I have 3 of these wilson blx and would like to depart of the lowest swingweight of the three I have.

tlm
01-31-2012, 06:25 PM
Yes, but with a low swingweight so you have less power. I have 3 of these wilson blx and would like to depart of the lowest swingweight of the three I have.

Thanks but i am only interested in the asian versions.