Originally Posted by sunof tennis
In my opinion, the K95 and the BLX95 play differently. Some of it is the specs-the BLX95 has a slightly lower swingwieght and is slightly more flexible. However, I definitely felt the BLX95 played more muted, softer and less boardy. Is that the basalt or the flex rating?
I noticed a similar thing with the K90 and the BLX90 although the difference was pretty negligble with those two racquets.
Yea man I'm not saying there aren't differences, that's not the question, the question is "Do the materials make the difference", so all specs being the same, does for example Basalt make a difference? I say no, specs are specs.
If you take say a K-90 and a BLX 90, let's assume the specs are the same, that is same swingweight, same flex, same size, mold, etc. there will be no different, 12.5 oz is 12.5 oz.
That being said of course there are differences, my BLX 90 has a slighter higher swingweight than the new PS BLX 90, same mold, just a redistribution of weight and balance, I think even the flex although I'm not sure.
My K-Factor is just RAW, awesome, love it. I've played the 6.1 BLX 95 and although great, I prefer the K-Factor, but that's just me.
So to surmize, MATERIALS MATTER ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE USED IN DIFFERENT SPECS, and that they do to sell new racquets.
I suppose you could get a wood racquet, give it the same specs as a Bab 100 and it would play similar, if the wood were very stiff, same weight, balance, does the wood make any difference? I don't think so.