NO.1 table tennis review site

User review

• 

  NANO SPINⅡ CHARISMA

  

  It brought back a nostalgic feeling.
  It reminds me of the era when I used JUIC Scramble 21 with speed glue.
  It grips the ball well for spin, and the ball holds on the sponge nicely, so control is fairly easy too.
  Personally though, I felt like I wanted a bit more bounce.
  It felt a little on the soft side, and I thought the rubber might not keep up, but the ball still came up just fine.
  I think it's a rubber that suits the backhand side.

  See original review Hide original review

  懐かしい感じを思い出しました
  JUICスクランブル21にグルーを塗って使用していた時代のボールを思い出します
  回転もしっかりとかかり、球持ちもいいのでコントロールもそこそこしやすいです
  ただ個人的にはもう少し弾みが欲しいかなと思いました
  少し柔らかめの印象で、ラバーがついてこないかなとおもいましたがボールはしっかり上がってくれました
  バック面向きのラバーだと思います

  2019/11/28

  Overall	9/10
  Speed	9
  Spin	8
  Control	9
  Hardness	Little soft

  Recomend racket QUARTET AFC

  Was this review helpful to you? Like! Thank you for your feedback. Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.

  73

• 

  DIGNICS 64

  

  Comparing this to Tenergy 64:
  Rallies: It felt like it had slightly more bounce than Tenergy, but the difference wasn't huge.
  Topspin drive: Speed stood out more than spin. It has more spin than Tenergy, and on fast drives the ball dips down, which seemed to make it hard for opponents to return.
  Serve: The spin bites in well, and I think you can go for service aces with it. Adjusting length is a bit tricky and requires practice and technique.
  Block: It wraps the ball well and gives it good bounce, so if you time your contact right, it can really turn into a weapon.
  Counter: Countering felt a bit difficult. As mentioned, it has that ball-wrapping feel, so unless you read the spin accurately, counters are hard to pull off.
  Overall: Since it puts more emphasis on speed than spin, it's good for speed drives off the forehand, but I think this rubber really shows its strength on backhand blocks and fending off attacks.

  See original review Hide original review

  テナジー64との比較です
  ラリー:テナジーよりもやや弾みが強い印象でしたがさほど差は感じませんでした
  ドライブ:回転量よりもスピードが印象的でした。テナジーよりも回転量は多めでスピードドライブではダウンボールになり相手は取りづらそうでした
  サーブ:回転はしっかりとかかり、サービスエースも狙えると思います。長短の調整がやや難しく、練習量とテクニックが必要です
  ブロック:ボールをしっかりと包んで、弾んでくれるので、インパクトさえしっかりと合わせれば化けると思います
  カウンター:カウンターはやや難しく感じました。前述の通りボールを包み込む印象で、回転量をしっかりと見極めないとカウンターは取りづらいです
  総評：回転量よりもスピードに重点が置いてあるのでフォア面でのスピードドライブもいいですが、バック面でのブロックや、しのぎなどに実力が発揮出来るラバーだと思います

  2019/09/26

  Overall	9/10
  Speed	10
  Spin	9
  Control	8
  Hardness	Little hard

  Recomend racket HURRICANE LONG 5

  Was this review helpful to you? Like! Thank you for your feedback. Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.

  20

• 

  Dignics 09C

  

  I currently use this on my forehand.
  Unlike the other tacky tension rubbers I've used before, I was really surprised that you can get plenty of speed even playing away from the table.
  Blocks don't fly, so my impression is that you get better shots by putting your own spin on the ball rather than relying on your opponent's power.
  All in all, I think this rubber can handle that luxury problem of wanting to take the initiative with spin while still wanting real power.

  See original review Hide original review

  現在フォアで使用しています
  今まで使用した粘着テンションとは違い、後陣からでも十分なスピードが出る事は非常に驚きました
  ブロックは飛ばないので、相手の力を利用するよりも自分で回転をかけていった方がいいボールがいく印象的です
  とにかく回転で先手を取りたいけど威力も求めたいという贅沢な悩みにも対応してくれるラバーだと思います

  2021/02/07

  Overall	9/10
  Speed	9
  Spin	10
  Control	9
  Hardness	Little hard

  Recomend racket HURRICANE LONG 5

  Was this review helpful to you? Like! Thank you for your feedback. Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.

  15

• 

  HURRICANE LONG 5

  

  This is the blade I'm currently using.
  The way the ball carries through when you hit hard is incredible.
  I don't really see any weak points — I think it's really well balanced overall.
  Hurricane series blades have a lot of knockoffs out there, so you need to be careful, but I think a genuine one performs just fine.
  The one I used was the Hurricane Long N301.
  This time I used high-tension rubber on both sides, but I think it would still perform well even with a low-flying rubber like a tacky one.
  It's a shame it only comes in an FL grip,

  See original review Hide original review

  現在使用中のラケットです。
  強打時のボールの伸びが驚異的です。
  特に悪いと思った部分もなくバランス良く仕上がっていると思います。
  キョウヒョウシリーズのラケットは類似品が多いため注意が必要ですが正規品なら問題ない性能だと思います。
  自分が使ったのはキョウヒョウ龍N301でした。
  今回は両面ハイテンションラバーですが粘着ラバーのような飛距離の出にくいラバーでも充分に力が発揮できると思います。
  グリップがFLのみなのが残念ですね、

  2018/05/16

  Overall	10/10
  Speed	10
  Spin	9
  Control	8
  Touch	9
  Hardness	Little hard

  Recommend rubber(Front) Bluefire JP 01 Turbo

  Recommend rubber(Back) Fastarc G-1

  Was this review helpful to you? Like! Thank you for your feedback. Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.

  9

• 

  QUARTET AFC

  

  My impression is that it's relatively easy to hit, and while it has good bounce, it also gives you solid control.
  A lot of people say it's better suited to close-to-the-table play and doesn't have enough bounce away from the table, but I think that might just be a preconception from knowing Niwa uses it.
  If you try to get distance using only the topsheet, the bounce does feel a bit weak, but the distance really comes through depending on your swing speed.
  Isn't feeling like there's not enough bounce more of an issue with how you're hitting it?
  It's a racket without much quirkiness — the ball goes where you hit it — so how easy it is to use will probably depend on the player, but overall I felt it offers relatively good value for money.

  See original review Hide original review

  比較的打ちやすく、弾みもありながらしっかりとコントロールもあるラケットの印象です。
  前陣向けで後陣では弾みが物足りないという意見が多いですが、丹羽選手の使用という先入観があるのではと思います。
  シートでのみ飛ばそうとすると確かに弾みが少し弱く感じましたが、スイングのスピードに応じて飛距離もしっかり出ます。
  弾みが足りないと感じたのは打ち方の問題では？
  あまり癖のない打った通りに飛ぶラケットなので使用者次第で使いやすさも変わってくると思いますが、比較的コストパフォーマンスは高いラケットだという印象でした。

  2018/02/14

  Overall	9/10
  Speed	9
  Spin	7
  Control	8
  Touch	7
  Hardness	Little soft

  Recommend rubber(Front) V＞15 Extra

  Recommend rubber(Back) TARGET PRO GT-H47

  Was this review helpful to you? Like! Thank you for your feedback. Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.

  9

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. Next >
7. Last »