Donic BlueFire M2 and M3 review

Snakefish wrote:   So what you are saying is M2 loses its speed faster than R7 after 1 month of use, right ?

kuifje wrote: Thanks, that's useful info. So M2 is a bit slower than Rakza 7?

I think m2 is faster than rakza 7. tried both on clipper wood. rakza 7 is harder and a bit higher throw on power loops.

kuifje wrote: seguso wrote: kuifje wrote: Thanks, that's useful info. So M2 is a bit slower than Rakza 7? I think m2 is faster than rakza 7. tried both on clipper wood. rakza 7 is harder and a bit higher throw on power loops. And how does M3 compare to M2 and Rakza 7?

m3 is softer than m2, but not very soft. it is still much harder than rakza 7 soft.

of course, much softer than rakza 7 regular.

m3 is slower than m2, and more linear. can produce a shorter arc, so easier to use on backhand.

the main propery of m3 is that it is soft and high-throw at the same time. this is rare.

m3 is a very good blocking rubber because your block has arc and spin when blocking powerloops. However, you have to close the blade a lot.

m3, being soft, is ideal on BH for people who want to always loop their service response, and are not always sure about the service spin. (so they cannot power loop, but want to do a controlled loop)


Edited by seguso - 04/04/2013 at 6:33am

Take assiduous's comments above with a pinch of salt.  M3 is harder than a LOT of soft rubbers on the market today (Desto F3, Acuda S3, Rakza 7 Soft, Calibra Sound, Aurus Sound, etc etc).  I can only imagine that his experiences are unique to him, and he is unable/unwilling to use any rubber softer than medium.

AndySmith wrote: M3 is harder than a LOT of soft rubbers on the market today (Desto F3, Acuda S3, Rakza 7 Soft, Calibra Sound, Aurus Sound, etc etc).

in fact the envelope of M3 reads "soft + ".

it was probably not possible to have a softer rubber with high throw.

for example, rakza 7 soft is softer than m3, but it is low throw. it plays totally different from rakza 7 regular. M3 does not play totally different from m2.

I think if you are mostly a pusher and blocker, and play loops only to kill, you can use hard rubbers like m1. your blocks will suffer but your pushes and loops to kill will be more effective.

But if you are a looper, i.e. you try try to loop every ball, including service response, then you just cannot profitably use hard rubbers on backhand or forehand, unless you are literally a pro. You'll get poor spin in your controlled loops, and less arc.


Edited by seguso - 04/04/2013 at 5:05pm

kuifje wrote: iakovka wrote: Played several times with old m2 after playing rakza 7. Liked it a lot. Two weeks ago I got new m2 and I am extremely happy. I really adjusted fast. The speed is not crazy but overall for my game - excellent balance. If it will last another 25-30 hours, I will be very happy with my decision to switch How does the speed and spin of Rakza 7 compare to M2 or M3? Currently play with Rakza 7, but sometimes feel I lack control. My ideal rubber would probably be in between Baracuda (better for looping) and Rakza 7 (better for blocking).

Is Bluefire M3 better than the EVO EL-P or FX-P for the backhand?

Hey guys,

while I do agree that softness/hardness is everyone's preference, that does not mean that assiduous can't bottom out the M2. For example there is a guy at my club who has crazy BH. When practicing he drives balls close to the table, and the power of those drives would easily be world's top 100 (but just at practice and just at this element).
So, when I'm just BLOCKING his drives with my 2.0 M3, it bottoms out, balls goes through to the blade like half the time (my blade is stiff and at least medium hard)
OFC I don't give a crap about that, because I am used to it and I like it in a way, but I hope you get the point.. Give a person bigger benefit of the doubt.


Edited by Varnas - 05/03/2013 at 2:34am

Varnas wrote: Hey guys, while I do agree that softness/hardness is everyone's preference, that does not mean that assiduous can't bottom out the M2. For example there is a guy at my club who has crazy BH. When practicing he drives balls close to the table, and the power of those drives would easily be world's top 100 (but just at practice and just at this elemeont).So, when I'm just BLOCKING his drives with my 2.0 M3, it bottoms out, balls goes through to the blade like half the time (my blade is stiff and at least medium hard)OFC I don't give a crap about that, because I am used to it and I like it in a way, but I hope you get the point.. Give a person bigger benefit of the doubt.

Varnas, a good player estimates the spin and pace on the ball and adjusts his stroke accordingly. The "bottoming out" phenomenon is used ad an excuse to explain why a loop was missed. But the real question should be around technique. I know someone who plays with 1.0 mm Mark V on his forehand. Playing him has taught me a lot because if I loop to his forehand, the ball is going to bottom out and come back dead on most strokes. So I usually push to his forehand to invite an attack which I then counter to anywhere I prefer. The point anyways is that there is nothing wrong with bottoming out the ball with your stroke and in fact, with a looping setup, you can still get good spin doing so. What should not be done is to use this as an excuse for the limitations of one's touch and technique. I have seen many power loopers use rubbers like Calibra Sound or Rakza 7 soft or Acuda S3. They don't complain about bottoming out anything. They loop the ball hard. Technique will always trump equipment.

popperlocker wrote:   I like your message, but I disagree to an extent. If you've ever used extreme setups, like a very stiff blade, or soft, or a super dwelly or no dwell, or very fast, or very slow,etc,etc. You'll come to the conclusion that equipment  matters! Limitations. There is only so much you can do, with a no dwell setup/brick blade. Proof is the extermination of hardbat because of sponge. Those hardbat masters with maxed out technique like Reisman shat their pants when sponge appeared. Not saying Assiduous is as good as Reisman. Nonetheless, put M2 on a super stiff/no dwell blade and another M2 on a nice dwelly blade, the difference is huge!

Lestat wrote: I've been playing M2 max for about 2 weeks on the FH and I've noticed I have to be very careful with bat angle otherwise it flies unusually high above the table. Most apparent when lifting long heavy underspin and at counter looping - in other words when I swing the hardest. Even if I get the angle wrong, it's not THAT wrong. Not 100% sure but my feeling is the rubber is bottoming out.

Maybe you are lifting too much.  You might need a more horizontal stroke for the same bat angle.

Lestat wrote: NextLevel wrote: Lestat wrote: I've been playing M2 max for about 2 weeks on the FH and I've noticed I have to be very careful with bat angle otherwise it flies unusually high above the table. Most apparent when lifting long heavy underspin and at counter looping - in other words when I swing the hardest. Even if I get the angle wrong, it's not THAT wrong. Not 100% sure but my feeling is the rubber is bottoming out. Maybe you are lifting too much.  You might need a more horizontal stroke for the same bat angle. I am lifting too much, no doubt but there seems to be a cut off point after which the ball goes straight. And it's the counter looping too. I'll give it another couple weeks to see how it goes, I actually like the rubber. I'm having nowhere near the same issue with MX-P, it will dip no matter what - even if over the table.

Curious what you are looking for in Bluefire that you can't get in MX-P - if it is short stroke spin, then that is the general tradeoff between harder and softer rubbers.  No rubber can do everything.                                                                                                  


Edited by NextLevel - 05/03/2013 at 11:36am

Varnas wrote: Well, on this I can agree :) Bottoming out should not be used as an excuse, because as I've said I even like it in a way, but that's because I like the ball I return after the rubber bottoms out. But for example if assiduous does not like that, you should understand this. I bet that most majority of players do not like bottoming out effect.

Majority of which players?  Most players don't even care about it because they are focused on using the right stroke to get the ball on the table and simply assume that if they missed, they didn't use the right stroke. 

Some people can play table tennis at 2100 level using long pips on both sides, others can do so with a clipboard.  Your job is to control the ball using your equipment of choice and to accept that you did not use the correct stroke when your ball did not do what it was supposed to.  You become a better player by learning how to adapt to your equipment, not by blaming its mysterious properties for flaws in your strokes.

popperlocker wrote: NextLevel wrote: popperlocker wrote:   I like your message, but I disagree to an extent. If you've ever used extreme setups, like a very stiff blade, or soft, or a super dwelly or no dwell, or very fast, or very slow,etc,etc. You'll come to the conclusion that equipment  matters! Limitations. There is only so much you can do, with a no dwell setup/brick blade. Proof is the extermination of hardbat because of sponge. Those hardbat masters with maxed out technique like Reisman shat their pants when sponge appeared. Not saying Assiduous is as good as Reisman. Nonetheless, put M2 on a super stiff/no dwell blade and another M2 on a nice dwelly blade, the difference is huge! Your disagreement has no substance.  No one is saying that if you play with hardbat, you can play exactly the same way as if you play with sponge.  However, if used properly, just about any combination of wood and rubber can be controlled to a 2000+ level at least.  It might require a hitting and chopping game, but again, that is a technique issue.  Consider yourself the master of your equipment.  If you get something with all-round or even defensive control and work on your game, you will be fine and way better off than someone who spends forever finding the right, magic setup to transform his game.  Learning the right strokes to use on a different set up might enhance your understanding of your current setup, but you can get very good (at least by USATT standards) before equipment becomes an issue. This would make sense if we lived in a world where everyone was an all rounder.. However, you know this is not the case. You have pure defenders, 2 wing loopers, flat hitters, etc.  For example, I am a 2 wing looper. Sure, I could change to a flat hit/chopping style(which i've done before, when forced to used crappy premades). However, that's not my style of choice or what I've built my game around. It's like telling Kobe Bryant to play pro soccer, he just needs to work on his technique. He's very athletic, and a very good soccer player. However, his game of choice is basketball. It would be ridiculous of him to switch to a different game when he's already specialized and successful in basketball. Just like it would be ridiculous to ask Timo Boll to play pure defense, when he's a natural loop king and built his game around it. Sure, sure, Timo could play a successful chopping style, would he want to? would he be comfortable? would he be as successful? would it be logical?

I have said that within reasonable ranges of equipment quality, you are better off honing your technique than seeking better equipment.  I supported that claim by showing that extreme differences in equipment do not prevent you from getting to a good level of table tennis in the USA. What is objectionable about that?  Please be specific.  Thank you.

To make myself clearer, all round equipment simply means that all the major strokes can be played using the equipment.  So if one's technique improves with such equipment, it is mostly transferable to better and more specialized equipment for specialized strokes.


Edited by NextLevel - 05/03/2013 at 2:41pm