Topic: Bats graded on performance (Read 24366 times)

Jackson29 · « **on:** October 12, 2018, 03:44:40 PM »

Do any batmakers(UK) grade bats on performance rather than the grains and looks. I know they don't just grade it on looks but I've had terrible looking bats that play well and feel like it's a lottery for those top top bats. Cheers

Biggie Smalls · « **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2018, 04:11:58 PM »

Kippax.

InternalTraining · « **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2018, 04:42:58 PM »

Bat grading system is a scam and buyers are gullible enough to pay for it. All bats should be graded on a number of measurable criteria (willow density, dead weight, swing weight, location of node of percussion, swell position, balance point, handle stiffness, handle thickness). We also need to measure the rebound generated off the surface of the ball. From my discussions, I suspect James Laver has some "secret" method of determining quality/ping of a timber before he starts shaping a bat. Whatever that is, we need a way to measure it and standardize. Look at tennis racquets, golf clubs. It is practically a science in those sports but cricket is a stone-age sport with bright stickers.

Bat sizes as we current know them are wrong too - many decades (or centuries) ago, someone arbitrarily drew progressively larger bat sizes on a piece of paper and THAT became the standard. Na-uh uh! Through trial-and-error, we know that a standard SH length with a shorter (than SH) blade generates better bat speed. In general, people use bats that are too long for them. Size SH is too long for many players. Size 6 or Harrow should be the standard bat size.

adb club cricketer · « **Reply #3 on:** October 12, 2018, 04:56:43 PM »

I don't think bats can be truly graded on performance. Some bats play well right away while some play well after some time. How do you grade those before each has been played in? The one which opened up later could be much better than the one which went right away.
Also, ping test can tell if bat is good or not, but can't really differentiate between two good bats with small differences in performance. So how do you decide if the bat has to be priced GBP 300 or GB 400 for e.g., say

I think if there was a scientific way for batmakers to grade on performance exactly, that would have been done already. In the absence of any such precise way, we have the current imperfect ping test based/similar performance evaluation and so we end up with so many low ends bats which perform great and high end bats not so.

Novak · « **Reply #4 on:** October 12, 2018, 06:00:28 PM »

Very true agree with the above

Ball bounce can sometimes be misleading too .

Grading is a con

In my opinion minimal and no concaving is best but there is a shortage of the best willow and retail prices are high

Pressing is a skill

CricketXI · « **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2018, 10:13:25 PM »

Right now there is no scientific way/method followed by any bat maker to rate performance of a bat.
Grading on performance is just a marketing gimmick at this point now. Its to lure general public into buying a bat for a price way more than it should be.
There is no measuring scale for this right now.

I have never seen a very good looking bat being marketed as performance grade bat, does that mean a very good looking bat is not as good performing bat.
Its just that some bats perform better than other regardless of the grade-some times its due to intrinsic property of that piece of wood or just few more ounce of wood on the bat.
If a bat is made properly it will perform regardless of the grade.

JK Lewis · « **Reply #6 on:** October 14, 2018, 08:16:12 PM »

I'm not sure how one would actually grade on performance to be honest. It is true that Kippax back their manufacturing process to deliver the same quality whatever the willow, and controlling their own forests must help.

But really, how much testing would you have to put into each bat to measure performance? What would be the criteria and who in their right mind would grade their own bats at low levels?

I can't see how it could work. Grading on performance might suit potential bat buyers but would probably bankrupt the batmaking industry.

edge · « **Reply #7 on:** October 15, 2018, 05:53:25 AM »

I actually read a research paper on this kind of thing the other day - test was to compare the measured performance of a bat with the perceived performance, as judged by a cricketer with a mallet. Blind tests with painted bats of varying grades but identical profile etc. It was a fairly small study, but guess what... huge majority of the participants couldn't correctly rate the performance. What a surprise!

WalkingWicket37 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 15, 2018, 08:16:59 AM »

Quote from: edge on October 15, 2018, 05:53:25 AM

I actually read a research paper on this kind of thing the other day - test was to compare the measured performance of a bat with the perceived performance, as judged by a cricketer with a mallet. Blind tests with painted bats of varying grades but identical profile etc. It was a fairly small study, but guess what... huge majority of the participants couldn't correctly rate the performance. What a surprise!

"These are all painted so must be planks, where's the grade 1's?"

Seniorplayer · « **Reply #9 on:** October 15, 2018, 11:23:48 AM »

Quote from: InternalTraining on October 12, 2018, 04:42:58 PM

Bat grading system is a scam and buyers are gullible enough to pay for it. All bats should be graded on a number of measurable criteria (willow density, dead weight, swing weight, location of node of percussion, swell position, balance point, handle stiffness, handle thickness). We also need to measure the rebound generated off the surface of the ball. From my discussions, I suspect James Laver has some "secret" method of determining quality/ping of a timber before he starts shaping a bat. Whatever that is, we need a way to measure it and standardize. Look at tennis racquets, golf clubs. It is practically a science in those sports but cricket is a stone-age sport with bright stickers.

Bat sizes as we current know them are wrong too - many decades (or centuries) ago, someone arbitrarily drew progressively larger bat sizes on a piece of paper and THAT became the standard. Na-uh uh! Through trial-and-error, we know that a standard SH length with a shorter (than SH) blade generates better bat speed. In general, people use bats that are too long for them. Size SH is too long for many players. Size 6 or Harrow should be the standard bat size.

Abosultly agree that's why I use a full S/H with an one and half inch shorter blade.

drawknife23 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 22, 2020, 09:14:26 PM »

Are people in this thread honestly saying that they would pay top price for an ugly piece of wood that was promised by the manufacturer to perform brilliantly? Take for example 1 of the �top� brands retailing bats at �600+ and when it turned up had 4 grains, pin knots, was sweaty etc etc but was promised to perform well you as a consumer would be more than happy?

Gurujames · « **Reply #11 on:** February 22, 2020, 09:28:42 PM »

No. I have never paid more than �200 for a new bat. I wouldn�t care about the grains/looks as a well pressed cleft will perform regardless of its grade.
People can do what they want with their money, but most people in the know understand that a pretty cleft does not equal performance.

Buzz · « **Reply #12 on:** February 22, 2020, 09:29:30 PM »

No, that is the point.

Welcome to the forum

SouthpawMark · « **Reply #13 on:** February 22, 2020, 09:53:46 PM »

I�ve never seen a pro cricketer use a bat made from an ugly piece of willow.

jonny77 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 22, 2020, 10:00:13 PM »

Quote from: SouthpawMark on February 22, 2020, 09:53:46 PM

I�ve never seen a pro cricketer use a bat made from an ugly piece of willow.

Most will use top grade willow because they are provided that by the sponsor, who wouldn't want them to be seen with lower grade/'uglier' willow, for obvious reasons.

However I can remember Glen Maxwell used a Kook low grade because it felt good. There's a video of it somewhere.

If you can afford top grade and that's what you want, then fine. But if you can't, be assured you can get equally good performing bats on lower grades.

Author Topic: Bats graded on performance (Read 24366 times)

Jackson29

Bats graded on performance

Biggie Smalls

Re: Bats graded on performance

InternalTraining

Re: Bats graded on performance

adb club cricketer

Re: Bats graded on performance

Novak

Re: Bats graded on performance

CricketXI

Re: Bats graded on performance

JK Lewis

Re: Bats graded on performance

edge

Re: Bats graded on performance

WalkingWicket37

Re: Bats graded on performance

Seniorplayer

Re: Bats graded on performance

drawknife23

Re: Bats graded on performance

Gurujames

Re: Bats graded on performance

Buzz

Re: Bats graded on performance

SouthpawMark

Re: Bats graded on performance

jonny77

Re: Bats graded on performance