The Victor AURASPEED ETA “Yaoguang” badminton racket is equipped with a 6.8mm Pyrofil carbon fiber shaft, featuring WES2.0 technology and suspended core technology, enhancing swing speed and shot angles with remarkable precision.
Pyrofil Carbon Fiber: This advanced carbon composite material, developed using Mitsubishi Rayon’s chemical technology, is known for its lightweight strength, which improves the racket’s shock absorption and control.
Strong Core Technology: Made from helicopter-grade polymer material, this “sandwich” structure of carbon fiber enhances stability and shot accuracy.
Power Break Wind Frame: Based on aerodynamic principles, the updated diamond frame includes variations along the frame—narrowing inward at the 12 and 6 o’clock positions and outward at 3 and 9 o’clock. This blade-like frame design boosts airflow, increasing return speed and smoothness.
Suspended Core Technology: This new grip shape, made with Japanese nano nylon and advanced molding, allows greater freedom of shaft movement, improving swing fluidity and comfort.
SR Toughened Nano Tubes: The single-wall carbon nano tube material significantly increases racket strength, elasticity, and fatigue resistance. This enhanced material allows for an ideal balance of strength and feel.
Whip Enhancing System 2.0: The upgraded carbon fiber layering improves torsional resistance and stability, with sharper angles on attacks, redefining explosive whipping power.
There are so many rackets that I couldn’t even finish testing all the stock I have if I reviewed one daily, especially the low-end ones. Playing with them feels more like a casual task. In moments of uncertainty, I gathered a bunch of old and worn-out rackets to try, some purchased with my own money, and others borrowed from close friends. It was an opportunity to break free from relying on equipment performance. The rackets came with poor strings, so I decided to try them out as-is, just to see what it would feel like to play again.
When I collect these old rackets, I often think back to my very first one from the Victor Explorer series, and I wonder if I can recall some details from other models.
Specifications: 3UG5, without the cap, total weight in use 90.41g, balance point 295mm, shaft length 215mm, low stiffness, oval aerodynamic frame, 72-hole string bed, 9–3 o’clock string grooves, warranty of 22-24 lbs, strung with 22 lbs training strings. If the 6350 model can still attract buyers with its striking colors, then the white version of the 6550, among its many color variants, really feels plain and uninspired. It embodies a sense of “no technology, no decoration, no gimmicks.” Clearly, even at the time, it was positioned as a training racket, and I imagine its feel could be summed up as “good enough to use.”
This racket’s swing weight is slightly lower than that of the 6350, offering a more balanced feel among low-end rackets. In such low-tier products, there’s unlikely to be a significant difference in materials, with the main distinctions being balance point or stiffness adjustments. When using both rackets together, besides the balance point difference, there’s not much more to distinguish between them.
What surprised me was that this slight adjustment made the 6550 feel noticeably inferior to the 6350. If the 6350 could still rely on its relatively higher swing weight to provide extra power in shots, the lower balance point of the 6550 eliminated the ease of hitting high-quality long shots. The racket’s elasticity is already poor, and with the diminished sense of borrowed power, hitting clean clears became difficult. While this might cater to some beginners who believe “lighter is better,” it doesn’t help maintain shot quality.
As expected, the racket performs poorly in offense and drives. First, the loss of power is very evident—despite the strings being terrible, the racket as a whole felt powerless during downward strokes, unable to draw out any elasticity, even showing a disjointed feel during short, sharp hits. Second, it was hard to maintain my own rhythm. Even though the frame’s wind resistance is low and the racket is relatively flexible, the sluggish shot response made me feel like I was using a fishing net in rallies. Whenever I tried to push or power through a drive, the racket face seemed to cradle the shuttle, refusing to let it go.
Later, I tried changing the context, using the racket against players with a noticeable skill gap. Surprisingly, I began to appreciate its low balance point, which made generating power easier, especially in handling backhand shots and blocking smashes at the net. However, even though the slower pace gave me more time to hit each shot, the racket still struggled to return long shots effectively. Although I adapted to it somewhat over time, the adjustment period for a beginner’s racket was a bit too long, and I had to rely on string changes to compensate for its performance shortcomings.
In the end, though it didn’t cost me much, finishing the trial with this racket left me somewhat bitter. I ended up playing conservatively, merely blocking and tapping near the net, feeling like I was in “retirement mode.” I really don’t have the confidence to use it in doubles and drag my partner down. A few times, I brought it onto the court, played a couple of rallies, and then quickly swapped it out.
I am the gravedigger of the Challenger series, the gravedigger of the Pulsar series. I am the gravedigger of the Explorer series, and I am also the gravedigger of the Columbia series. Currently, there aren’t many models left between me and the first bullethead, the Columbia 1000.
Of course, I’m also doubtful that I can still find such ancient equipment.
Specifications: 3UG5, full length 665mm, with a cap, total weight in use 91.57g, balance point 289mm, shaft length 210mm, medium stiffness, boxy bullethead frame, 72-hole string bed, 9–3 o’clock string grooves, warranty of 26 lbs, strung with 24 lbs training string.
The 2300 is truly ancient, and it’s still the standard length of 665mm. Victor didn’t put much effort into decorating it, after all, two or three decades ago, the means were indeed limited. The sides of the frame are adorned with a continuous golden-yellow sticker, creating a basic sense of layering with the black at the top of the frame and the transition to the new color, and that’s it. Even the artistic design of the shaft model isn’t something I can describe—it’s just that.
Although this bullethead looks quite large, the sweet spot is still relatively dense. The strings are too weak to bring out the racket’s power, or perhaps the small sweet spot didn’t allow me to consistently hit it to generate power. So, even though the racket’s swing weight is low and feels comfortable to use, there’s always a sense of “not being able to hit with power.” This feature is relatively easy to avoid during warm-ups when the pace isn’t fast and it’s easier to find the hitting point, but I can foresee that it will cause me trouble in subsequent matches. Also, I really can’t get used to standard-length rackets…
Although the official positioning of the racket is slightly stiff, either due to material aging or the old materials themselves, the overall hardness of the racket feels only moderate by today’s standards. Even with the shorter shaft, there’s nothing particularly difficult about driving it. While it’s still not a racket suitable for beginners, for players who have mastered the correct hitting technique, getting past the 2300’s threshold shouldn’t be an issue.
Because of this, when there’s an opportunity to generate full power and hit downward shots, the 2300 can be quite deceptive. Its excellent power feedback allows me to produce decent offensive shots when I hit the sweet spot. However, the materials overall are really subpar, with a disjointed feel in power transmission and very little elasticity.
However, the racket’s strength clearly doesn’t lie in offense, as its frame characteristics make it unsuitable for fast-paced matches. Its low tolerance makes it hard to hit the shuttle head or execute quick, sharp shots comfortably. It’s passable for soft touch shots near the net, such as blocking and follow-up plays, but flat drives are really weak. For most of the match, it gave me a dull and unresponsive feel, with an overall muddled experience. It urgently needs a change of strings, but the issues it has exposed are already enough for me to give up on giving it another chance.
It’s fine for collection, as it’s a racket with a lot of era-specific characteristics and a relatively classic design. But if you want to use it for serious competition, you’d better stick with something else.
The series has always had some internal distinctions between high and low tiers. According to official data, the pricing for the COLUMBIA 3 is the lowest, with COLUMBIA 2 and COLUMBIA 5 in the mid-range, and COLUMBIA 6 being the most expensive.
This time, I’ve achieved a small milestone: completing the entire Columbia series. The last one, COLUMBIA 2 is truly the most unconventional and non-mainstream of the entire series.
Specifications: 4UG5, full configuration weight of 86g without the bottom cap, balance point of 305mm, 7.0mm Pyrofil carbon shaft, 220mm shaft length, stiff tuning, egg-shaped frame, 72-hole string bed, 8-4 o’clock string grooves, 28lbs warranty, strung with 25-27 BG80p.
In terms of appearance, it’s very different from the boldness of its other siblings in the series, instead coming across as somewhat understated, with a deep, dark fantasy vibe. The primary tone is graphite black with cyan-blue accents. Aside from the performance parameters printed on the shaft and the Columbia series decoration at the 12 o’clock position, the racket is quite minimalist overall. It seems to contain a kind of indescribable power. This is the Columbia racket that resonates with my aesthetics the most.
In terms of performance, it’s non-mainstream for four reasons: the grip, the shaft, the frame, and the string bed. First, it’s the only racket in the series that comes exclusively with a G5 grip, whether in 3U or 4U. Secondly, the shaft diameter of COLUMBIA 2 is 7.0mm, unlike its siblings’ usual 6.4mm. Thirdly, the frame material includes Pyrofil carbon, which is rare across the entire Victory racket lineup. Lastly, it uses the series’ only 72-hole string bed layout.
When first holding it, you can sense the significance of these changes—it feels like they were trying to make COLUMBIA 2 a suitable egg-shaped racket for fast-paced doubles play. Indeed, although it retains the series’ signature head-heavy feel, the balance point is relatively less extreme, having minimal impact on swing speed. The more streamlined frame noticeably helps reduce wind resistance. During dry swings, I realized that this is the fastest swinging Columbia racket.
During the warm-up with some clears, I felt something unusual: a combination of violent power and speed. The former is easy to understand, as it’s a feature of the series—the sharp sound when hitting the sweet spot and the frightening shuttle speed. However, the current setup of VBS68p strings, which are supposed to have stronger ball-holding characteristics and medium hardness, didn’t quite show those features. Instead, it provided a crisp feeling when hitting the shuttle. The 7.0mm stiff shaft, 72-hole string bed, and the Pyrofil carbon used in the frame all contributed to this. Furthermore, the swing speed of COLUMBIA 2 reached the threshold of “fast,” and the G5 grip size made quick movements and switching between forehand and backhand more agile.
As a result, the racket’s passive defense and drive performance represent the highest level in the series. Quick, responsive returns, good speed in rallies, relatively low wrist strain, and easier angle adjustments give the racket significant strength in mid-to-front court exchanges, although it still can’t quite compete with speed rackets.
In terms of attack, COLUMBIA 2 is slightly less aggressive. Its potential for smash power is limited by the lighter swing weight, but it still has decent downward pressure. However, the racket faces two main challenges. One is that the crisp shuttle release and its relatively balanced nature require more explosive power from the user when smashing. Unlike rackets like “356,” where you can rely on swing inertia to aid in attack, with this racket, you need to exert more force yourself and shorten the power stroke. The other challenge is that the increased swing weight and changes in the frame material make the racket feel more vibration-prone during heavy hits, and the feedback isn’t as pleasant.
That said, the speed and power of the shuttle release are still quite good, and the loud sound it produces can be intimidating. It also led to a rather sneaky mixed doubles strategy—starting the game with two full-power smashes to scare the opponent, and then, on every favorable rear-court shot, jumping to smash towards the female player’s flat clears. It’s quite effective!
However, it’s still a racket with a peculiar temperament. Multiple tests showed that its performance varied depending on my physical condition on the day. The first time I used it, I was very satisfied with the power I could handle, but on days when I was slightly off, I couldn’t manage it as well. For those who like playing in the rear court but are on a budget and can’t afford an “88D,” you might want to give this one a try.
It’s an odd racket in an odd series, hitting all the right aesthetic points for someone like me who loves unusual gear. However, it’s so niche that its distribution channels and availability are extremely limited. I don’t think this racket is going to become popular.
Previously, a friend mentioned that the Columbia series feels incomplete if it’s not a 3U. For the third installment, I decided to get a 3U Columbia 5. After testing it, I was struck by how high-end the actual feel is, though even at a mid-range price, it hasn’t enhanced market performance details. The current Columbia series is all high-spec.
Specifications:
Weight: 3U G5
Full specs weight: 90g
Balance point: 310mm
Shaft: 6.4mm Babolat carbon
Shaft length: 220mm
Hardness: Rigidly tuned
Frame: Egg-shaped box frame
String grooves: 8-4
Core filling: Strong core filling
String tension: 25-27 lbs VBS66N
The new copper color with a glossy finish is part of the Columbia’s series design. It doesn’t bring anything new, but the striking color reminds me of Rambo from First Blood—with a muscular look.
Feel and Performance: Upon first use, there’s a noticeable head heaviness, which was expected. Aside from that, there’s nothing particularly new. The weight increase from 4U to 3U further limits the swing speed. As for flexibility, it’s similar to the Columbia 6.
The shaft’s performance parameters are clear: the rigidity is between the Columbia 3 and Columbia 6, better suited for players who find the latter too stiff but are dissatisfied with the former’s softness. The racket still delivers powerful and aggressive shots. Even when adding extra force for clears, it can pressure opponents with poorer fundamentals. The shaft’s tuning is at a “drivable” hardness level, which I find very favorable. However, it’s still on the heavier side, so it’s not recommended for everyone. This racket has a strong self-selection filter for its users.
Key Points: For intermediate players, especially against opponents who prefer high serves, you need to consider your tactics. In such cases, start quickly to ensure you can reach the shuttle point in time and execute a strong attack. The racket delivers explosive sound and effect with powerful shots that can pin the shuttle down from the baseline. After adapting to the egg-shaped frame, controlling the sweet spot becomes easier, elevating the overall experience to an exceptional level. The thrill of smashing with this racket is addictive, making you temporarily forget its demanding power requirements. The Columbia 5 surpasses the previous Columbia 6 in terms of pure smashing power.
With this weight, the stability of shots improves. From backcourt smashes to frontcourt drop shots, the racket performs reliably. It’s hard to believe it’s an egg-shaped frame, as it offers excellent directionality and high success rates with undeniable feel.
Flat Drives and Passive Handling: The handling style remains consistent: minimal treatment. However, with the decreased rigidity, the struggling posture looks a bit better. The Columbia 5’s hardness is well-suited for me, achieving a balance between drivability and explosiveness. At this level, scoring methods don’t need much explanation.
Overall, there’s not much to say. For the Columbia 3, 5, and 6, choose according to hardness preferences. Personally, I favor the Columbia 5 for its crisp shot feeling and versatility. It works exceptionally well for mixed doubles and is relatively comfortable for singles. This review is shorter since the Columbia series involves minor adjustments that directly affect the feel. Understanding the shaft details helps in analyzing them. The 3U version provides a more satisfying experience, though you’ll need to be prepared for its heavier weight. The Columbia 2, the last one I’ll discuss, deserves more attention. This racket has already found a new home.
The staff at the stringing shop I frequent took over the Columbia 3 and specifically asked, “Are there any new Columbia rackets?” “Egghead rackets are rare now.” Indeed, despite Victory releasing new egghead rackets over the past three years, these products, regardless of their performance, neither have the buzz (models like the Columbia 2/3/5/6 are recent releases) nor have they become mainstream (the JetSpeed 60 is notably regrettable).
When I previously tested the Yu 7K, I mistakenly thought Yu was the shortest series in Victory’s lineup. It wasn’t until I tried the Columbia 3 that I realized Columbia is actually the shortest series, so I aim to quickly try them all.
Parameters: 4UG5, full grip (towel grip), total weight 89.5g, balance point 302mm, 6.4mm Babolat carbon shaft, shaft length 210mm, moderate stiffness, egghead box frame, warranty 27 lbs, strung with 25-27 lbs VBS66N.
Compared to the mango yellow of the Columbia 6, the Columbia 3 gives a more traditional impression. Black, gold, red, and white are all popular colors, and the paint and stickers are rather simple and retro, giving me a sense of examining military equipment. However, the design style of the Columbia series is very consistent; comparing the Columbia 6 and Columbia 3 shows almost no difference in patterns.
The feel of the Columbia 3 is quite similar to the Columbia 6, with a slightly head-heavy sensation. Although egghead rackets naturally have less wind resistance, the box frame of the Columbia 3 means it has no advantage in swing speed. However, compared to the Columbia 6’s “unstoppable” feeling after the shot, the Columbia 3 is slightly better. During empty swings, I can feel the racket’s overall stiffness is moderate, not as high as the Columbia 6. I would recommend the G5 specification; this model’s grip, possibly due to changes in raw material supply, is thicker and feels slightly bulky even after removing the grip.
On the day of testing, my insomnia and lack of rest made me doubt my ability to handle this racket. Indeed, during high clears, I found myself struggling. Despite the moderate difficulty in shaft drive, the heavier swing weight and smaller sweet spot often caused me to miss the optimal hitting point or produce less effective returns. Before playing a match, the Columbia 3 felt like previous egghead rackets, not easily understood with just a few tentative shots, indicating a certain learning curve.
During the actual match, I discovered some characteristics of the Columbia 3. Compared to the Columbia 6, its shots lack a bit of crispness and have more holding feel, making me unusually inclined to engage in more net play to create a more active doubles scenario, especially in quick net responses. The feel is quite stable. The strong core filling, a signature technology of Victory, also gives the Columbia 3 good torsional resistance. Columbia series’ luxurious materials ensure excellent directionality and stability.
However, for small power shots, the Columbia 3 is slightly inferior to the Columbia 6 in terms of feel. Due to the change in shaft stiffness, the Columbia 3 has a longer time from impact to ball release, resulting in a somewhat “mushy” feedback. This issue makes me less fond of flat drives and blocks, as the ball’s rhythm is slowed by the less crisp rebound and somewhat clumsy swing, making it harder to recover. Even when hitting the sweet spot, the disadvantage in swing speed and small sweet spot reduces tolerance, even in active situations. During the test match, I had an awkward situation where I successfully anticipated the opponent’s shot but failed to react quickly enough due to the racket’s sluggish response, resulting in lost points. This issue also extends to the backhand area and passive lifts.
Adapting to the Columbia 3, or finding the right way to use it, becomes crucial. For a brute force player, the answer is straightforward—power, not control. The head-heavy balance, excellent shaft elasticity, and persistent egghead frame make powerful shots exceptionally effective. Each drive and smash has explosive power, meeting the standards of a top offensive racket. The reduction in shaft hardness is a plus for players who lack concentrated power, making the Columbia 3 a better choice for delivering strong offensive performance while allowing for more frequent powerful shots compared to the precision-demanding Columbia 6. Smashes feel like cannon shots, and even if the opponent avoids a direct point, the force of the shot often provides a second attacking opportunity. However, the Columbia 3 does consume a lot of stamina, partly due to the racket’s inherent nature and the aggressive desire for powerful shots driven by the feedback: flat clears, drives, heavy smashes, and covering various court areas. I willingly push myself to the limit.
Nevertheless, this is still not a racket that every player can appreciate, and it has a flaw that current adjustments cannot resolve. Although the medium stiffness adjustment improves the whip-like power in single smashes, it also results in a “duangduang” feeling during faster, continuous play due to the shaft’s spring effect, making the frame feel less responsive and capable of only holding its shape. The 6.4mm medium shaft is just adequate for this somewhat heavy frame, not exceptional.
If everyone’s stamina is a milk bottle, and executing each tactical move is like adding stones of varying diameters, then the stones for smashing should be the largest. Sometimes there is still space in the bottle, but it cannot accommodate another heavy smash. The Columbia 3 makes the stone diameter slightly smaller, meaning while each large stone might weigh less, it allows for more stones in the bottle and minimizes wasted space when full. The Columbia 3 may not be easy to handle, but it effectively allowed me to win matches by optimizing my stamina and striving for court control.
I personally do not understand the emphasis on “retro” in Columbia’s official promotional posters. The egghead design did appear earlier, but this shouldn’t be the reason for its lack of popularity among current players. The promotional approach seems to conform to and reinforce stereotypes. The Columbia 3 remains a product with excellent cost-performance, particularly valuable when paired with a doubles partner willing to assist with ball play. If Victory restricts its audience, it will only lead to lower market performance for its other Columbia models.
The low-end entry racket market is quite complex. As far as I know, there are already many rackets in the 99 series, such as the Balanced Blade and the Offensive-Defensive Blade. However, I haven’t experienced their actual performance yet, so I’ll wait until I get the chance to try them. In the near future, I plan to conduct a comprehensive evaluation and comparison of entry-level rackets priced between 100 and 200 yuan. Many advanced players may dismiss these rackets, and they are indeed not very appealing. But to provide some guidance for beginners, I’ll first talk about the long-standing Victor 9500.
The “Fire Dragon Spear” has been a renowned name for more than a decade, back when I was in high school. I vividly remember saving up my pocket money for a long time to buy one online, only to receive it with a broken frame. Lacking experience at the time, I didn’t file a claim, and that was the end of it. After many years, picking up these two rackets again brings back a lot of memories: I still recall running under the setting sun—that was my lost youth.
Back to the topic, these rackets belong to my classmate: one is the red 9500C, and the other is the blue 9500. In essence, there’s not much difference between them, so I’ll discuss them together.
Appearance: The red-black and blue-black combinations are generally safe choices. The red-black version is more bold, while the blue-black version is more understated. The design has been maintained up to now, and in terms of paint durability, the 9500 seems to hold up better than the 9500C. As for looks, they’re fairly standard, carrying the typical aesthetic of older Victor rackets. If you care about aesthetics, you might want to check out the Pro Kennex Star Shadow, Star Illusion, or Star Cloud.
Specifications: Both rackets are 4U in weight, strung with BG95 at around 25 lbs. The balance point of the 9500C is slightly higher. Overall, they both fall under the category of balanced rackets, with 10-4 o’clock string grooves and box frames.
Feel: Nothing particularly stands out. If I had to point out a weakness, I’d say there’s no real weakness—everything is fairly average. I’d give it a score of around 65 out of 100 (truly balanced). It’s not great at generating power for clears, especially after using highly elastic rackets like the Kirin, White Tiger, and Vermilion Bird. After using those, the 9500 feels quite stiff. The shaft feels somewhat rigid and dull, and the directional control isn’t very precise, which is particularly noticeable when attacking from the backcourt. The red-black 9500C feels slightly better when driving the shuttle downwards, though this could just be a psychological effect. The racket does have enough power to deliver a smash in the mid- and front-court. In terms of flat drives at the net, although the racket is relatively light, it’s hard to control because of the slow rebound rate. When caught in a rally, it’s best to break out of it quickly. However, the racket does perform well in net shots, with the large frame offering a high tolerance for errors. Whether it’s rolling the shuttle along the net or cross-net shots, it handles them with ease.
Overall: After using it for a while, although the racket doesn’t have any standout features, I don’t think it’s particularly suited for complete beginners. In my opinion, it’s more suitable for players who enjoy smashing, have some basic strength, but haven’t yet perfected their technique—typically aggressive male players. As for female players, I’d suggest steering clear and opting for the Star Cloud or Star Illusion instead. To this day, the 9500 still holds a place in the low-end market. Besides its inherent brand advantage, the performance it offers at this price point is indeed noteworthy. Moreover, it has a certain level of resale value and is highly durable. If you’re worried about buying other brands and getting a poor-quality racket (since 100-200 yuan can still be a lot for some students), the 9500 is a safe choice as an entry-level racket. If you’re looking for an even better experience at the same price, stay tuned for my next review.
One of the flagship models from the Challenger series, as soon as you see the “Ti” prefix, you know what kind of cutting-edge technology the racket used at the time.
The positioning and origins of the two flagship rackets can be discussed in the next article. Today, let’s talk about this mango-yellow masterpiece.
Specifications: 3UG5, with cap, total weight in use: 95.80g, balance point: 292mm, shaft length: 218mm, medium stiffness, box-shaped frame, 72-hole string bed, 9-3 o’clock string grooves, tension guarantee of 26-28lbs, strung at 25-26lbs with NBG95.
I have a deep impression of every racket in mango yellow, especially from Victory. The “Columbia 6” in some ways is also a racket built with this “retro” concept, showing that this color scheme was indeed classic in the past. The head features metallic silver decals on top of a carbon fiber base, transitioning at the 2 and 10 o’clock positions to an entirely yellow base coat. This design is a signature style of the high-end “Ti” models and is reflective of its heritage. Even today, this racket still stands out with its layered, eye-catching, and classic design.
Although it does come in 4U specs, the “light” back then was more about the balance point, just like the MX30L and Ti70. With a balance point of 295mm in playing condition, it’s firmly in the balanced racket category. So even though it’s a bit heavier, it still feels relatively light in the hand. The racket’s stiffness is rated as medium-high, which by today’s standards is more like medium. The driving force is good and clear, neither too stiff nor too soft. Recently, I’ve been playing with 72-hole rackets—both isometric and traditional oval ones—so in my current state, I found this racket to be easy to use.
After gaining some familiarity with it, I confidently took it into more intense matches. Its relatively low entry barrier quickly became apparent, on par with the Arc7. It’s not too heavy, has good elasticity, and the box-shaped frame combined with the thick shaft ensures the racket’s torsional stability and precision. While playing clears and flat drives, the racket offers clear feedback upon impact. Adjusting and fine-tuning both angles and power significantly improved the placement of my shots. Even in rushed situations, it didn’t lead to frame mishits.
Of course, I can only speak to my own experience, as some players have reported that it’s not easy to handle in the equipment database.
What I found more enjoyable than the Arc7 was that the Ti70 offers a stronger sense of explosiveness in the sweet spot, even though the Arc7 wins in terms of sweet spot size and forgiveness. This gives the Ti70 a notable advantage: when you find the perfect opportunity to exert power from the backcourt, you can confidently go for a powerful smash, regardless of whether the opponent is prepared to defend. While the Ti70 doesn’t offer extreme explosiveness or speed upon hitting the sweet spot, it provides solid feedback and reassurance in terms of shot power. Additionally, it excels at quick, sharp smashes and pushes. However, if you attempt slice smashes, its lower forgiveness will become apparent, demanding more precision.
I would describe it as a younger version of the Ti98, but the Ti70 has a slightly larger frame, and the shaft material isn’t as densely packed, which limits its overall explosiveness. This slight shortfall actually works to its advantage at the net. With a less stiff shaft and lower frame rigidity, the slightly enhanced ball-holding feel greatly improved my control during net shots. It feels much more solid. When rotating to the frontcourt, the Ti70’s frame allows for smooth net kills and tumbles.
However, expecting this ease of use to translate into excellence in fast exchanges and drives isn’t realistic. The box-shaped frame, while stable, creates more air resistance, and combined with the longer shaft, the racket’s recovery speed after each short stroke is slower, affecting its ability to keep up in fast-paced exchanges. In such situations, I can usually only hold out for three rounds of flat drives before needing to clear to the backcourt. The 3U version is fairly agile but doesn’t offer the high swing speed or continuous play capability of faster rackets. A steadier, more deliberate playstyle suits it better.
Despite this, I still prefer the 3U version, as its solidness and stability more than compensate for the slight loss of agility.
Being steady and patient never goes wrong, especially since the Ti70 is quite forgiving. It’s user-friendly when returning smashes with borrowed power or when recovering from defensive situations. The swing weight isn’t overly taxing, and the moderate stiffness doesn’t raise the power threshold too much. Even with a backhand drive, I can hit a straight shot to the backcourt.
It’s solid like a seasoned veteran. The Ti70, despite competing in a different category, still has a decent following, which speaks to its popularity. Given its current second-hand market price, this old racket still packs quite a punch.
Here’s why I’m reviewing the 9500 again. The batches available now are mostly later versions, with two upgrades compared to the original release. First, the S/D shaft has become thinner, with some saying it reaches 6.8mm, though actual measurements typically show it at around 7.0mm. Regardless, this is an upgrade from the original (C/F). Second, the number of string holes has changed from 72 to 76. Driven by a sense of achievement, I realized after checking the equipment library on Badminton Central that I had indeed missed one version. Unfortunately, the original version is now quite hard to find for comparison.
However, throughout my usage, it became clear to me how much my skill level has changed over the past three years. It’s been a journey of self-discovery.
Specifications: 4UG5, with bottom cap, total weight in use is 93.1g, balance point 298mm, 7.0mm shaft, 220mm length, low stiffness, box-shaped frame, 76-hole string bed, 9-3 o’clock string grooves, 24 lbs warranty, strung at 24-26 lbs with BG65.
Like the old version, the new version comes in red and blue paint jobs. Honestly, I believe the paint quality of the 9500 is pretty good. The three-color segments on the frame, the glossy finish, and the well-executed paint application are still not outdated even today. This is something I didn’t mention in my previous review. Some players might not buy it for its looks, but how well something is designed and how well it looks are two different concepts. If you compare the 9500’s paint quality across different brands in the same range or even with higher-end products from Victor, this uncut paint job still holds its own.
The 4U 298mm balance point is a very honest setup. As some gear reviewers have said, the current state of the 9500 offers just enough swing weight for a powerful hit without losing control or making it difficult to maneuver. This specification is particularly user-friendly. Even with durable strings, players with proper basic techniques should have no problem hitting high-quality clears. The only downside is the relatively low 24 lbs warranty, but this is hardly a flaw given the consistently low price.
I specifically reviewed my earlier thoughts on the 9500, and while I suspect they were also new versions, the current racket feels noticeably better, possibly due to the string condition. The slightly softer shaft tuning remains, but this time, there is no dead or muted feedback after hitting, though it still lacks power. I believe the minor upgrade to the shaft has made a real difference.
This review is more thorough than the previous one, especially since I used this challenger racket in both singles and doubles. Considering the context for beginner players, I would more strongly recommend the 4U version. It remains easy to wield, reduces energy consumption, and performs better in doubles. The extra few grams of weight in singles or doubles isn’t as crucial for enhancing attack power or shot stability as proper form and higher swing speeds are for beginners.
What surprised me is that the 9500 provided a very good experience in the frontcourt during doubles play. The frame is relatively smooth, so the balanced design allows for comfortable performance during fast-paced rallies. I describe it as “comfortable” mainly because its agility helps you keep up with consecutive shots, allowing you to perform well. The 9500’s tendency for a softer hit and the slower recovery speed of the shaft are limitations in high-level fast exchanges, but it’s easy to use, which is already a significant advantage.
Additionally, the softness of the shaft has its benefits. The shaft deforms more easily in passive situations, and when the material elasticity can’t be further enhanced, this flexibility is key to delivering shots accurately. The 76-hole string bed also provides a larger sweet spot, improving forgiveness and reducing the effort required to generate power, allowing the racket to perform to its full potential in defense and passive situations.
If you compare the 9500’s offensive power to other products in the same category, it can serve as a benchmark. Over the years, its attack power has remained slightly above average, just enough to be considered solid. It’s a racket that allows for effective downward shots while maintaining continuity. For players advancing their skills, it doesn’t disappoint. Of course, for beginners still fantasizing about smashing through opponents with one powerful shot, I’d advise that due to the frame and shaft material, the safest and most economical way to boost your attacking threat is to upgrade your strings.
Overall, even though I’ve used many excellent entry-level products and have already used this particular model, I must admit that this racket, which has been praised for years, truly deserves to be called a classic. If you clearly understand your needs, you can certainly find more suitable entry-level products for specific beginners at this price point. However, its success lies in its well-roundedness—it’s naturally a racket that won’t go wrong for beginners. Even if it doesn’t suit you, selling it secondhand would only lose you a few dozen bucks, and everyone recognizes its value.
This review also led me to discover a more composed version of myself, who can better handle equipment, opponents, and make the most out of them.
As a classic, long-lasting entry-level racket, it remains one of the options recommended by many experienced players to beginners as their first racket. I still remember my first named racket being from Victor’s Explorer series, a product of the same era as the Challenger.
Although I haven’t played with this racket yet, I’ll make up for it by borrowing it from a friend. By the way, this isn’t from the “what more could you ask for” series, as this racket still costs a significant amount today, and it even retains its value on second-hand platforms.
Specifications: 4UG5, with overgrip and string installed, total weight and balance point unknown, medium stiffness shaft with a 7.5mm diameter, 210mm in length, suspected to have a fish-mouth cone cap, standard box frame, 10-4 o’clock string grooves, strung at 25lbs with BG65Ti strings.
In terms of appearance, it’s acceptable. The red stickers on the frame are aesthetically pleasing, but there’s nothing particularly noteworthy to comment on. I could critique the aesthetics of many of Babolat’s high-end rackets, but for this classic design, there’s nothing much to say—it feels standard and ordinary, like when parents wear gold-rimmed reading glasses. The only touch of technology is the “power box” marking at the 5 o’clock position, giving the 9500 a sense of modernity.
The racket has a slight head-heavy feel, and the box frame leads to slower swing speeds. However, the 4U version doesn’t feel uncomfortable during air swings, with a moderate load. Rackets at this price range often have a plasticky feel, which may be a psychological bias of mine. To give a more precise description in the future, I’d probably need to do blind testing without knowing the price.
When hitting clears, I immediately sensed the old-school flavor typical of Victor’s mid-to-low-end rackets from the last decade: wood-like and jarring on the hands! The shot quality isn’t bad, and the shaft is easy to drive without being overly soft. As long as the technique is correct, hitting clears is relatively easy, though the feedback isn’t particularly pleasant—it’s akin to using a racket with a slightly higher balance point like the Astrox 99 Tour (see the previous review). It’s passable for an entry-level racket, though—aside from the iron hammer models, I haven’t encountered many rackets at this price range that deliver a truly powerful shot.
The racket’s performance in handling defensive and passive shots is stable, which I found satisfying. If it were a 3U version, this aspect might suffer, but the 4U version is more suitable for me, especially as someone who mainly plays doubles. The 9500 excels in handling net shots, with its large face and slightly ball-holding nature making it easy to adjust angles and control. In mid-to-front court situations in intermediate-level doubles matches, it can help set up shots for a rear-court partner who can deliver powerful smashes.
Theoretically, the standard box frame should create a large and consistent sweet spot, but hitting the sweet spot on the 9500 didn’t make me feel like I was getting a higher-quality shot. On the contrary, missing the sweet spot resulted in unpleasant vibrations throughout the racket. Overall, its smashing ability is above average for rackets at this price point. Its moderate head-heaviness and stable box frame provide controlled power for smashes, but its shot speed remains average, and attempts at more explosive shots often feel like they lose power. The vague sweet spot and off-sweet spot vibrations significantly impact the enjoyment of attacking with this racket.
In terms of drive and block shots, it falls short compared to the cheaper Jujiang K07. The box frame’s high air resistance, coupled with the long, soft shaft that’s slow to recover after deformation, results in less crisp shots, leaving the player somewhat powerless in fast-paced exchanges. It’s puzzling that, despite the extended shaft, the 9500 still requires a fish-mouth cone cap design.
Having tested many entry-level rackets at this price range, I agree that the 9500 still holds its value with its stable quality, though it’s difficult to call it the best option. All current versions come from Victor’s Nanjing factory, and differences between versions require individual testing. Personally, I think the C/S/D versions, which have had shaft upgrades, may offer better performance. For doubles, both 3U and 4U are viable, though for singles, 3U is a must to avoid more shortcomings. I wouldn’t recommend this racket to female players, and for beginners who don’t favor a power-based playstyle (a rare few), this racket offers some unique advantages for control, net play, and improving front-court techniques. Overall, though, this racket feels somewhat outdated.
I’m preparing to update the Yu 10 Metallic, but today I want to first introduce what I personally consider the best balanced racket from the Blue Factory that I’ve encountered so far. Some curious readers who treat these reviews like “digital preserved vegetables” might be surprised and wonder, “Hasn’t the Yu 9X already been reviewed?”
What I’m about to talk about is indeed not that racket. I couldn’t find the exact release date of this racket in my gear collection, but the earliest reviews date back to 2009.
So, apologies, but in my mind, this antique is more in line with my aesthetic preferences than the Yu 9X.
Specifications: 3UG5, no bottom cap, total weight in used condition is 91.9g, balance point is 293mm, 7.0mm shaft, length of 215mm, medium-to-high stiffness, small box-frame racket head, 72-hole string bed, 9-3 o’clock string grooves, warranty for 28-30lbs, strung with 25-27lbs Gosen G-Tone 5.
The appearance of the TI98 bears obvious marks of its era, giving a simple and unpretentious feel, though it doesn’t strike me as outdated but rather as a classic, much like the McLaren from the Silver Arrow era. The entire racket features a silver coating with a few stickers, and the sharp-edged, boxy frame design from Victor’s most primitive models solidifies its austere aesthetic—it truly is old-school, lacking even power grooves, making it a standard box frame. The shaft has some dark ring patterns, somewhat reminiscent of the texture seen on rackets using WOVEN carbon technology, but since there is no official mention of this, I lean towards attributing this to a paint effect. The large areas of titanium at the 10-2 o’clock positions on the frame are quite eye-catching, as titanium tech was highly sought after in rackets from that era.
Will the 3U version deter people again? At least before I actually used it on the court, I thought it might be an unrelenting weapon. But in reality, its weight feels quite pleasant. For one, its overall weight isn’t particularly high for a 3U racket, and two, the weight distribution in the head isn’t overly significant. Looking at the relatively low balance point reminded me of the website’s description of E-Titanium, which mentioned a weight-boosting effect, though this isn’t very apparent on the TI98. Nonetheless, the swing weight and overall weight make for a racket that feels solid in hand without being too energy-draining or uncomfortable to swing.
I went straight to the court with the TI98 without any prior adjustment period. Logically speaking, the smaller sweet spot on the 72-hole small-box frame should be harder to find, but I was in good form that day and didn’t encounter too many difficulties with offensive shots. I even took it into doubles play without any issues, which was a stroke of luck and may not reflect a typical experience. The shaft isn’t as sophisticated in construction as modern rackets with advanced technology, but with a diameter of 7.0mm, it looks quite thick. However, the elasticity is still there, similar to the MX60.
The relatively low balance point gives the TI98 a level of continuity that satisfies me. Though it can’t achieve faster swing speeds, it retains some degree of agility in hand. In doubles, as long as you’re not positioned too far forward and can react to the incoming shots, its performance in flat exchanges and fast blocks is acceptable. The real challenge lies in the lower forgiveness rate due to the small-box head; if you miss the sweet spot, it’s hard to generate a powerful return. Additionally, the shuttle doesn’t fly off the strings with a crisp bounce, which might feel unfamiliar to most users of speed-oriented rackets.
The lack of crispness is due to its shuttle-holding ability, which actually benefits net play, offering stable control and quick adaptation when performing net shots. The slight shock-absorption effect allows returns to stay close to the net. In the hands of a player with good finesse, the TI98 can deliver some excellent performance. In theory, the feel for drop shots and slices should also be quite good, but due to the smaller sweet spot, its tolerance remains less than ideal.
However, the lower tolerance does not affect the TI98’s defensive performance. As long as you’re positioned correctly, it’s not hard to defend against smashes, and it offers both the ability to clear to the backcourt with a rebound effect and to softly block shots close to the net. This is rare because it’s difficult to balance hard, bouncy, and shuttle-holding characteristics. This also reflects the excellent balance of this racket. Aside from some fast, overhead clears that are hard to hit the sweet spot and produce quality shots, I believe the TI98 has a high enough floor for performance.
As for its offensive capabilities, I think the word “shocking” sums it up. Despite not having an extremely high swing weight or a highly elastic shaft, when you hit the sweet spot during a full-powered strike, the shot feels exceptionally solid and stable. The TI98’s ability to deliver speed and power in smashes largely depends on how accurate and forceful your strike is, accurately reflecting the user’s technique and physical strength. Its heaviness is different from that of rackets like the ZSP, with less of a whip-like feeling and a pure, solid strike due to the small-box head. In the backcourt, a well-executed smash can often break through the opponent’s defense. The directional clarity provided by the box frame ensures you won’t miss your mark or struggle to bring the shuttle down, and the excellent feedback allows me to feel both the shaft and string bed flexing and storing energy.
Currently, the price for this racket and its older sibling fluctuates around 500 RMB. Considering its quality, I think it’s well worth the price, performing half a level or even a full level better than the mid-range offerings from the three major brands in this price range. And this is due to careful tuning and high-quality materials, rather than relying on differentiated designs (speed, offense) to excel. If I had tried it a week earlier, it would have definitely made it into my last roundup post.
However, after the trial, I’ve developed a bit of mistrust towards the new rackets on the market. Over the years, advancements in production technology and manufacturing processes haven’t fundamentally improved the experience of using rackets. Instead, they’ve only made rackets more varied and specialized as new materials are discovered. Yet, if you were to quantify the overall performance of a racket, I doubt the reference values today would be much better than those of top-tier models from one or two decades ago.
This racket has once again greatly changed my perspective on balanced rackets.
Thanks to a fellow badminton player for lending it to me, I have finally completed the two remaining high-end models in the Pulse series that are still on the market. This time, it’s the big brother of the series, the TI99. Based on the specifications, the most notable difference between the TI99 and TI98 is the swing weight. Initially, I thought this would be a difficult racket to use for offense, but once again, I was pleasantly surprised. I love the feeling of unpredictability, yet I can’t deny its excellence.
Specifications: 3UG5, with bottom cap, total weight 94.39g in used condition, balance point 298mm, shaft length 218mm, high stiffness, box-type frame, 72-hole string bed, 9–3 o’clock string grooves, 30lbs warranty, strung at 28-30lbs with Li Ning L67.
It’s a classic color scheme: fiery red and metallic silver. The transition in the middle of the frame is very sharp, giving it that straightforward old-school feel. Due to the titanium mesh texture, the entire racket has a great sense of layering, making it both visually appealing and timeless. However, in some details, it remains quite traditional, for instance, it uses almost no stickers, but the glossy paint gives it an excellent texture, like a New World Cabernet Sauvignon, with a refined appearance that enhances the racket’s overall look. Though it’s a reissue, it has successfully retained the charm of the original details.
Though the racket is said to have a heavier head, I couldn’t help but laugh when I held it. Yes, compared to the TI98, the TI99 does feel heavier, but considering the existence of extreme offensive rackets like the Black Dragon Tooth, TK9900, and Yu 10M, it’s hard to say that the TI99’s swing weight would be too much for intermediate players. In my opinion, the 3U version is still slightly head-heavy but remains balanced overall. The TI99’s elasticity is well-displayed during active shots, and the drive feel from the shaft, aided by the frame’s weight, is relatively easy to harness.
Since it has a small flat head, some users might find the distribution of the sweet spot unusual. However, after comparing it, I realized the head curvature of the TI99 is actually quite similar to the 100ZZ; it’s just narrower by a frame thickness. For those accustomed to similar rackets, this shouldn’t be an issue. The feeling when hitting the sweet spot wasn’t as explosive as I expected. There’s a rumor that the reissue swapped the original egg-shaped head for a flat one, making the original string bed’s performance something to look forward to.
Let’s skip over the TI99’s performance in flat drives and fast exchanges. Although I can still manage some continuous shots with it, this racket wasn’t designed for that. Discussions on performance should be framed within its intended use. So, what should we talk about? Of course, the feel!
The shaft and frame are both stable and elastic. Back in the day, I would even say it performed better than the ArcSaber series. Its stiffness supports a solid feel, providing good directional control. I especially enjoy its stability during long rallies, which saves both effort and stress. Once again, I didn’t find the racket heavy, so its power wasn’t overwhelming. I guess many players who claim the TI99 is too heavy are either long-time users of 4U rackets or are intimidated by the specs.
However, the racket wasn’t ideal for front-court play, especially when intercepting at the net, where the slower response took some getting used to. Due to its weight, the TI99’s stability in small net shots was actually better suited to my playstyle than the TI98. However, the TI98’s lighter swing weight offers better agility, especially in doubles.
The increased downward pressure made a noticeable difference in smashes. When I had enough time and space for a full swing, the TI99 outperformed the TI98 in delivering sharper, more solid smashes with powerful placement. If you consistently hit the sweet spot, the offensive experience can become quite addictive. From my perspective, if you can handle the TI99’s swing weight, it’s not difficult to generate offensive pressure with it. Compared to extreme offensive rackets today, it’s still relatively user-friendly. Additionally, after pairing the racket with high-tension strings, its excellent shock absorption became apparent. After two hours of play at high tension, I experienced no discomfort in my arms, which is rare.
Similarly, in defense, there’s not much difference in feel between the TI99 and TI98. For difficult shots like backhands or underarm shots, the TI99 performed well with soft blocks.
One more thing to mention: the racket has excellent high-tension durability without the “dead” feel of frames reinforced with FRS. When high-grade carbon fiber is used, the false sense of durability comes from FRS, while true durability comes from E.TITANIUM. Just as I was about to suggest, “If you can’t afford the Platinum Claw, try the TI99 first,” I realized it was indeed once used by TTY, and it’s definitely more fun than the TK7000S. Upon reflection, I was being a bit hasty.
This is a very fun racket to play with—neither outdated nor compromised. The performance it delivers still holds up today. An excellent choice in terms of value for money, old school, but it’s unlikely to attract many players nowadays.
