[martin_hb]

Ich habe in einem anderen Forum einen Testbericht gelesen, den ich Euch nicht vorenthalten möchte. Ins deutsche darf sich das jeder selbst übersetzen.

G3

1 hour play on FH, then BH. I have not played with Sriver so I cannot say it so authentic: It is like a Sriver. (We will make a comparing test using G3/Sriver on the same wood) Bites the ball, rise it, beautiful flat trajectory, you can place the ball wherever you want. You can easily outline everyting topspin against heavy chops or counterspin. Serves contains lot of spin, your returns are effective and exact.

The only thing I could not do it to put out my opponent. Everything is alike, no variety of strokes, no dinamics. Everything is slow. Using my own racket (Bryce FX glued on 5ply wood) it is predictable: after an opening spin I can keep the opponent under pressure and can end the point with a huge ending spinn. With the test equipment some of "ending spins" were succesful only because my opponent predicted the way of the ball from the movement and the ball went on an absolutelly different way. When I wanted to do a sure finishing stroke I had to hit or hit/spin (but it also was slow). I like that the ball did not fall out in case of short games.

G3 FX

Better glued feeling but not really. Has a bit more dynamic, more catapult effect but less spin, does not rise and bite the ball so much. Real ending spin either cannot be made but the ratio of the spin and speed is better (for me who prefer softer rubbers). Sometimes it could not grab the ball in short game behind the net.

Meanwhile I got a similar blade with a pair of Coppa JO Gold MAX for a rally and I immediatelly felt it was better. More catapult, more dinamics although in short game it works as Donics work.