MOG's D09c Thread: Now Closed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Would you say that Yasaka Rakza Z is in the same category of "Chinese hybrids" like Dignics 09c?

Probably some of the characteristics but i need to try them out. I have the extra hard rz and d09c coming.
 
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Jan 2020
487
316
1,244
It’s certainly a lot closer to ESN than H3, which is probably the idea of its creation. It doesn’t have that “muted” feel of H3 (even boosted), instead springing out High and long easily. I’m not even sure why it has to be slower or faster than Rakza 7. I think the point is it’s in the same class of bounce reactions. Then it has tackiness for more spin and control.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Jul 2020
62
13
85
I'm now finding Rakza Z more spin sensitive than H3, especially with the increased catapult and higher throw it's noticable. I heard that D09c is meant to be not very spin sensitive so that might be one difference other than a slight difference in speed.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Oct 2014
12,272
17,728
44,267
Read 17 reviews
I'm now finding Rakza Z more spin sensitive than H3, especially with the increased catapult and higher throw it's noticable. I heard that D09c is meant to be not very spin sensitive so that might be one difference other than a slight difference in speed.

Spin sensitive is always a relative term. I suspect in reality, though I haven't used Rakza Z, that D09c and Rakza Z will be about the same.
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Active Member
Mar 2019
550
499
1,093
I avoid BTY at all cost at the beginning of my TT days thinking it's just overprice but at the end of the day BTY just have better gears and wear/tear better. That said I have to achieve a certain level to understand it. For the general public, yea don't waste money on bty, a 1400 can't tell the difference between 09c boosted and a 2 years old xiom rubber anyways, why bother.

This is absolutely true and based on recent videos, OP likely falls into that category.

But hey, screw Butterfly for being at the forefront of rubber and blade development for decades, and making the most durable and highest/ most consistent performing (for high level players) products. Anyone who could possibly like that is such a fanboy, right?! For example, nearly every pro who chooses Butterfly assuming they don't have other sponsorships.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UpSideDownCarl
3 hours isn't a very long time to get a good idea of the ins and outs of a rubber or blade.
Then go ahead and make a review of your own and do it 8 hrs a day. What does not work for you does not necessarily does the same for me. If you know what you are looking for in a test plus having the experience of testing equipment for 9 years will give you insight and it will not be hard. I stopped counting at 100 to 150 kinds of rubbers and blades each.
 
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Active Member
Mar 2019
550
499
1,093
Then go ahead and make a review of your own and do it 8 hrs a day. What does not work for you does not necessarily does the same for me. If you know what you are looking for in a test plus having the experience of testing equipment for 9 years will give you insight and it will not be hard. I stopped counting at 100 to 150 kinds of rubbers and blades each.

I said the ins and outs, much of which can only be discovered by the unique situations that come up in match play, situations that cannot be replicated in static practice i.e. FH to FH, drills, etc. I understand that your reviews are just surface generalizations but I was curious how many hours you put into each rubber, to get an idea of just how generalized/broad it is.
 
I said the ins and outs, much of which can only be discovered by the unique situations that come up in match play, situations that cannot be replicated in static practice i.e. FH to FH, drills, etc. I understand that your reviews are just surface generalizations but I was curious how many hours you put into each rubber, to get an idea of just how generalized/broad it is.
I would know the ins and outs of a rubber in a few days of testing it period. If that is what you think, it is only what you think. I know my craft and i know specific tests that i have developed including situational simulations to understand equipment. Also, reviews are in a thread and being in a thread, people can ask and post about an item over periods of time after the test has already been performed.
 
Last edited:
I said the ins and outs, much of which can only be discovered by the unique situations that come up in match play, situations that cannot be replicated in static practice i.e. FH to FH, drills, etc. I understand that your reviews are just surface generalizations but I was curious how many hours you put into each rubber, to get an idea of just how generalized/broad it is.

And where did you get the idea that i do not do match plays when testing an equipment?
 
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Active Member
Mar 2019
550
499
1,093
I would know the ins and outs of a rubber in a few days of testing it period. If that is what you think, it is only what you think. I know my craft and i know specific tests that i have developed including situational simulations to understand equipment. Also, reviews are in a thread and being in a thread, people can ask and post about an item over periods of time after the test has already been performed.

Can you share some of your situational simulations and how they recreate the uncertainties of live matchplay? Very curious.

Most pro players tend to try new equipment for at least 1-2 weeks (with multiple hours of training each day) before deciding on their feelings, so curious to hear how this process can be condensed.

3 hours just seems like a bit of a short time to break in, drill, and do matchplay and come to extensive conclusions.
 
Can you share some of your situational simulations and how they recreate the uncertainties of live matchplay? Very curious.

Most pro players tend to try new equipment for at least 1-2 weeks (with multiple hours of training each day) before deciding on their feelings, so curious to hear how this process can be condensed.

3 hours just seems like a bit of a short time to break in, drill, and do matchplay and come to extensive conclusions.

The trials of pro players are different. It is for testing what equipment suits them. Why are you insisting on just 3 hrs? 3 hrs a day for a week is what i said. You do not get the idea and purpose of my tests then. My tests are for amateur players and not pro players. Both groups having different needs and no i will not share my craft because those are my trade secrets. Goodness, i am wasting my time explaining myself to people. As what i have said make your own review do it like what the pros do then post here and we will see your so called insights and specifics about uncertainties.
 
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Active Member
Mar 2019
550
499
1,093
The trials of pro players are different. It is for testing what equipment suits them. Why are you insisting on just 3 hrs? 3 hrs a day for a week is what i said. You do not get the idea and purpose of my tests then. My tests are for amateur players and not pro players. Both groups having different needs and no i will not share my craft bwcause those are my trade secrets. Goodness, i am wasting my time explaining myself to people. As what i have said make your own review do it like what the pros do then post here and we will see your so called insights and specifics about uncertainties.

Because I asked how many playing hours (said hours on two occasions) you test them for, to which you replied "at least 3". You did not say 3 hrs a day for a week. That is a pretty good amount of time.

Trade secrets, lol :rolleyes: Answer 3 posts about your testing methods and say you are "wasting your time explaining yourself" after misreading my question. Nice!
 
  • Like
Reactions: matzreenzi
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top