Jayce
I don’t know if you’ve read the first two trial shares, but this update to the 1982 series brings 3 different tunings.
At the end of the 151 trial, I was presented with a sharp weapon with the qualities of a classic attack shot.
Parameters: 4UG5, de-bottomed, 85.6g in used condition, 324mm balance point, 6.8mm 4-axis center bar, 222mm long, stiffly tuned, thin-winged fluid box frame, 8-4 point cable slot, 30lb warranty, 25-27lbs of pull cable vbs66n.
The 151 is not a visually richly layered racket, and even from a distance, the pearl white primary color makes it less recognizable. On closer inspection, however, it still reminds me of the traditional beauty with ten fingers like scallions, a mouth like a shell, and skin like cream. The frame accents are similar to the 155, with an auspicious cloud-based pattern, but this time the gold and emerald green will look a little fresher against the white. In terms of racket appearance, a white color is universal, and the 155’s white, even if it doesn’t stand out, still has a plain look.
All I can say is that slammers are good at this.
Due to the short rubber, the balance point of the 151, which should be at 305mm, is 324mm after the bottom line is removed, which is already very exaggerated. As a result, the racket already reveals a significant weight when weighed, and the G5’s slim handle, white rubber, and base color create a huge difference between the racket’s strong head-weight and the impression that it’s a long, black, straight, JK with an M249, maybe that’s just the contrast? But in any case, the thinner frame also improves the swinging speed and makes the swinging process smoother, the racket is very easy on the hands, and there is no obvious lag in the head after the overall stiffness is improved.
This is definitely a racket that the slugger is ecstatic about, and for players who are used to using the three major brands of high-end offensive rackets, it is estimated that they will be able to find a more or less familiar feeling on the B151 when warming up on the hand. The high long ball of the racket is very good to borrow power, with the swinging inertia of the racket head, swinging the ball to hit the ball is a notch better than the feeling of the 153, out of the ball is relatively labor-saving and with a strong sense of power, relatively punchy, and forgiveness rate is also online. Perhaps the higher balance point down the line bed with the head of the greater impact, there will be a sweet spot than the 153 clearer and more powerful illusion, as long as the adaptation of the hitting point, then it will be every shot back to the ball with a slight sense of aggregation, this feedback is quite pleasurable. However, with the increased stiffness, the dampening and woodiness of the racket also reared its ugly head, which is more similar to both the previous stiff version of the 1982 as well as the 153.
To my surprise, the 4UB151 is not much more difficult to get started with than the 155, and I actually believe that the majority of advanced players will be able to play with this racket and hit the mid-range deformation. Especially in the face of their own passive need for continuous defense, generally believe that the heavy head for the lower hand position will not be so smooth, but the built-in T-head of the 1982, low wind resistance frame in the improvement of agility and stability, but in the head of the ball can be more stable, easier to use the force of the rebound. When playing with the same day tape, I managed to score many points on top of the backcourt and split-side bounces to the opposite corner. Thanks to the stronger head weight and extra-long center bar, the racket’s drive difficulty favors power over explosiveness, lowering the threshold for use in disguise. Of course, me saying that the 151 is not that hard to use is similar to me saying that the 4U THRUSTER RYUGA/Brother-in-law is not that hard to use. The load on the upper limbs from such a strong head weight should not be underestimated, and for all of you who are interested in using the 151, you still need to pay attention to the specification of your swinging motion.
The author still believes that the higher swingweight is a viable optimization strategy for the 1982, despite the fact that it results in a disadvantage in swing speed and flexibility. As previously stated, this is a slugger’s racket of ecstasy, and aside from its face value, the quality of the 151’s offense is truly top-notch. It has the same strong downward pressure as the 155, while the consistent performance, speed and power of the ball are over the top. For high balls that are thrown high enough, you can find the right feeling to hit the ball hard, although you may not be able to score, but the strength of the ball and the accompanying sound of the explosion are shocking enough. For players with good power and explosiveness, the new hard 1982 with a 4-axis center stick makes it easy to play a strong and continuous attack, and the backcourt can almost always hold it. It’s a feeling that I personally and cautiously think smacks of the 88D.
I can see the 151 as basically having the qualities of the big three’s top-end offensive racquets in production, but even for other players who actually use it and feel that the name is more than it’s cracked up to be, it’s still very competitive to find a pintle racquet at this price point that doesn’t underperform by more than 80%.
Towards the end of my trial, I began to think that the 3U 151 would be a more extreme and better choice, and if it were possible to configure it again, I wouldn’t be able to resist giving it a 1-pound higher offensive stiffness to make its stable and precise attacking side shine through. For amateurs who are physically able to play, especially for mixed doubles or singles players, the 3U version may be more appealing.
