Baggy's Tecnifibre?

[counter_puncher]

wowza! new tecnifibre sticks!

[WhosYoDatis?]

Yea thats no samuri! its a SUMO!

[Babolast]

Originally Posted by f1 tech

Here is the new 320.

Originally Posted by f1 tech

So this is Baggys model?

[ericsson]

Originally Posted by Babolast

So this is Baggys model?

No it's not, he plays the T Flash 315. (PJ)

[Babolast]

What model was that then?

[f1 tech]

Originally Posted by f1 tech

[IMG][/IMG]

Baggy is using this one.

[Babolast]

Originally Posted by f1 tech

Baggy is using this one.

Then why did he say this?

Originally Posted by ericsson

No it's not, he plays the T Flash 315.

[nyc]

Originally Posted by srl

I had a hit with the new range of sticks and thought I'd share my thoughts for anyone who is interested.
First the Flash 315, I had played with the Fischer this was taken from many years ago and it is basically the same. The balance seems slightly more headlight and the grip has the Tecnifibre shape but other than that it is as similar as you will get, I remember a write up in tennis magazine many years ago that described it as 'like a ferrari-you'd better know how to drive if you're going to use it'. That sums it up a players stick that moves through the air quickly with a small sweetspot and good control if you find it, but if you don't it will let you know. Having said that if you're able to handle more heft some lead in the right spots would really develop the way it plays.
The Fight 320,325 and 325xl are the revelations to me. The beam has clearly been widened and the technical sell is that the frame has been firmed up in certain places to increase the balls dwell time on the strings and I have to say that I normally take a lot of technical blurb with a pinch of salt.
The T fight 325 was to me a classic and the 320 and 320xl stiffer in the shaft and hoop, they are good sticks with a big following but I have always felt that the 325 was better.
The new sticks are the nearest I have hit to the old 325's, they have the softer feel but are a bit more powerful, it seems strange that a wider beam would still have that flex and it is slightly stiffer in the shaft but the feel is much more like their previous classic and I feel these will be seen as another great stick from them.
The other racquets in the Flash range are basically the old Flash frames with new paint jobs and similar to pure drives and the other T fights are lighter versions of the Feel 300 but again good sticks.

Thanks for the review - very insightful. I have been a 320 devotee for quite a while now, but always felt that I could do with a tad more power and a slightly more forgiving sweetspot, especially as I get older (and not any faster).

I look forward to take them for a spin when they become available. too bad the PJ is really not to my liking.

[jorel]

how does TF not get sued by Fish?

[nyc]

why would they? Fischer's contract with Baggy ended and he's playing under TF now.

If anything, consumers would be able to sue TF for claiming that Baggy's playing with a 315, which he's clearly not.

[nyc]

It' s like James Blake playing his Dunlop stick the whole time he was with Prince...

[A_Fish]

I think it is a paintjob too. I am just a bit confused tho. Perhaps the new 315 is a different mold to the old Fischer. On the TF website, it is advertised as a 100 sq. in. head. Isn't the Fischer a 98sq. in. head??? Maybe Baggy is using the 98 Fischer mold, which is painted to look like the NEW TF 315..... Also, what is the stiffness like on the new frame? The old Fischer is flexible, but normally the TFlash models have been stiff.....

[srl]

Firstly don't get too tied into all this head size stuff. A racquet can be measured inside the frame and its 98 or outside and its 100, or in the case of the fight 97 for the 325 and 98 for the 335 which is now 95. I put my old 325 on top of the new model and could not see any difference in head size and by calling it 100 it gives it more of a new identity.
None of the new models had any flex stated on the decals so I could only compare to how I remember the Fischers playing from many years ago and it seemed about as close as possible but bear in it was strung fairly tight and with Promix. The 325 was definitely less 'boardy' than present models but again no stated flex. The bumper on the Flash 315 is even the same as the old ones-its moulded with the cut outs.

[surfordie]

Originally Posted by sargeinaz

Worst paintjob I have ever seen. Asian faces on a racket? Disgusting.

It's quite obvious how you feel about asian faces. Would it be any less disgusting to you if the faces on the racquet weren't "asian"?

It's amazing what people reveal about themselves without intention.

[sargeinaz]

Originally Posted by surfordie

It's quite obvious how you feel about asian faces. Would it be any less disgusting to you if the faces on the racquet weren't "asian"?

It's amazing what people reveal about themselves without intention.

Cut that BS out. Why are you trying to instigate things and make assumptions about me? I meant to put faces on a racket is stupid looking. They happened to be asian, so I described them as "asian faces". Any type of picture on a racket would be stupid to me. Whether its a face or an animal or a plant or anything else. It could have been any face and I would have said it looked stupid or disgusting. Black, white, asian, hispanic, middle eastern or any other race in the world. By disgusting I meant the look of the paintjob on the racket, not the face itself. Funny how everyone knew what I meant except you. Go try to start problems somewhere else.

By the way, nice second post. Way to make a good first impression on the forum.

[fluffy Beaver]

Originally Posted by sargeinaz

Cut that BS out. Why are you trying to instigate things and make assumptions about me? I meant to put faces on a racket is stupid looking. They happened to be asian, so I described them as "asian faces". Any type of picture on a racket would be stupid to me. Whether its a face or an animal or a plant or anything else. It could have been any face and I would have said it looked stupid or disgusting. Black, white, asian, hispanic, middle eastern or any other race in the world. By disgusting I meant the look of the paintjob on the racket, not the face itself. Funny how everyone knew what I meant except you. Go try to start problems somewhere else.

By the way, nice second post. Way to make a good first impression on the forum.

I like how you edited your post so many times to defend yourself and each time you keep adding more races.

Anyways, it wasn't necessary to add the word "asian" in front of faces. I'm sure if anyone said any other race, "ugliest racquet ever, it has a ________ man's face, disgusting" it sounds nothing but racist.

[sargeinaz]

Originally Posted by fluffy Beaver

I like how you edited your post so many times to defend yourself and each time you keep adding more races.

Anyways, it wasn't necessary to add the word "asian" in front of faces. I'm sure if anyone said any other race, "ugliest racquet ever, it has a ________ man's face, disgusting" it sounds nothing but racist.

I edited it twice to clarify what I was saying so sensitive people like yourself wouldn't sit there and fish for something racist out of thin air. Like I said, I used the word asian because that is what the faces are, are they not? Would you prefer I described them as middle eastern faces or hispanic faces when they clearly are not either of those? Grow thicker skin and stop looking for things to cry racism about.

[fluffy Beaver]

Originally Posted by sargeinaz

I edited it twice to clarify what I was saying so sensitive people like yourself wouldn't sit there and fish for something racist out of thin air. Like I said, I used the word asian because that is what the faces are, are they not? Would you prefer I described them as middle eastern faces or hispanic faces when they clearly are not either of those? Grow thicker skin and stop looking for things to cry racism about.

wow wow wow wow..... did you not even read my post? I clearly just said it was not necessary to add the word "asian" in front of faces. You could have just said "faces". Again read my post, i said it will sound racist to others no matter what race you put clearly meaning again, just say "faces" with out a race in front of it.

Seeing as how you are getting extremely defensive, my opinion on you and this subject is starting to change. Perhaps your head is too thick to comprehend others sayings?

[sargeinaz]

Originally Posted by fluffy Beaver

wow wow wow wow..... did you not even read my post? I clearly just said it was not necessary to add the word "asian" in front of faces. You could have just said "faces". Again read my post, i said it will sound racist to others no matter what race you put clearly meaning again, just say "faces" with out a race in front of it.

Seeing as how you are getting extremely defensive, my opinion on you and this subject is starting to change. Perhaps your head is too thick to comprehend others sayings?

I suppose I could have not used the word asian. I suppose it was not absolutely necessary to use that word. But I did use it to describe what they are because that is what they are. Was it necessary? No. Was I being racist? Nope. As far as my head being too thick, ya stupid things dont get through to me.

Now I dont feel like continuing this with you because this thread is about new technifibre frames. Feel free to email me if you still feel like talking about this.

[LPShanet]

I don't know any of you guys, but I thought it worth mentioning that I think there may have been a bit of overreaction here. Since the faces aren't even human (they're masks), it's not racist in any clear way to use the word "Asian" to describe them...it's simply helps understand that he's talking about the Kabuki faces on the frame...which are, in fact, Asian. The least you can do is accept his clarification and apology, which he's already given. After all, if you're talking about a rug that was ugly, no one would call you a racist for saying, "that Turkish rug is ugly", nor would they think that you hated Turkish people.