It was touched upon briefly in another thread, so in an effort to avoid derailing discussions about GM's snazzy new range, I thought I'd start a dedicated thread.
Some points for discussion.
Bat makers gradings, how many do it on looks/density and how many on performance. I guess most go on a mixture, but at the end of the day, they're businesses looking to maximise profits.
Do we believe that bats with straighter (and more) grains perform better in general, or do most of us buy high-quality bats because we like the way they look/make us feel?
Someone mentioned bats being bumped up and down grades at the final batmaker check. It's noticeable here that people will go wild over the idea of a 12-grain blemish free bat at a mid to low level grade, but as pointed out, does that really mean it's a duffer, and what we should be after is the high graded bats that look pig ugly?
Is it in bat makers interests to find a way to measure a bats performance empirically. Or would that be a waste of time anyway because performance out of the packet does not give an indication of performance once played in?
Author
Topic: Grading - the great mystery (Read 14883 times)