What bat each style calls for
The seven previous sections have developed each style separately: which stroke defines it, what it asks of the equipment, where the frequent error lies in equipping it. This section gathers that information into a combined view allowing the demands of each profile to be compared at a glance. It does not replace reading each section — the nuances and the reasons are there — but it serves as a map for quick orientation and as a starting point for anyone who does not yet know which style they fit.
The table below summarises the equipment variables the chapter has been setting out. The columns cover the five axes that vary most between styles: type of blade, rubbers, assembled weight, predominant distance, and the equipment trait that most distinguishes each profile from the rest.
| Style | Blade | Rubbers | Assembled weight | Distance | Distinguishing trait |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Two-winged attacker (16.1) | Composite (inner or outer), 5-7 plies | Two tensors of similar demand, medium-hard sponge | 175-190 g | Mid | Forehand/backhand balance |
| Traditional penhold (16.2) | Hard 7-ply or outer carbon; solid hinoki (Japanese) | Tacky Chinese on FH, residual on BH | < 185 g | Short to mid | Only one side active |
| RPB penhold (16.3) | Inner carbon or fast 5-ply | Tacky Chinese on FH, medium tensor on BH | 175-190 g | Mid | A different FH/BH compromise |
| Allrounder (16.4) | All-wood 5-ply or soft inner carbon | Tensors on medium sponge, moderate grip | 165-180 g | Close to mid | Wide dynamic range |
| Modern defender (16.5) | All-wood, 5-ply, flexible, large head | Long pimples on BH, medium-soft tensor on FH | 160-175 g | Far (chop) / mid (counter-attack) | Radical asymmetry of surfaces |
| Close blocker (16.6) | All-wood, 5-7 plies, stiff, no composite | Short pimples or anti-spin on one side, inverted control on the other | 155-175 g | Close | Minimal amplification |
| “Tricky” player (16.7) | All-wood allround, 5-ply, light | Two surfaces of opposite behaviour | 155-175 g | Variable | Equipment as tactics |
Several readings emerge from the whole. The first is that assembled weight falls as the style moves away from pure attack: the two-winged attacker carries close to 190 grams because mass is needed to transfer energy into the topspin; the blocker and the tricky player drop to 155 because lightness gives them the speed of transition and of twiddling their game demands. Section 11.5 develops how assembled weight conditions performance; it is enough here to observe that there is no “correct” weight in the abstract, only one consistent with what each style asks of the bat.
The second reading is that composite blades dominate in the attacking styles — 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 — and disappear almost entirely from the rest. Composite contributes stiffness and consistency on the hard stroke, but it shortens the contact time and reduces tactile information on the soft one. For the allrounder, the defender and the blocker, that loss of touch costs more than the gain in power. The differences between all-wood and composite blades are dealt with in chapters 9 and 10.
The third is the symmetry of the equipment between the two sides. The two-winged attacker mounts two equivalent rubbers; traditional penhold, one active rubber and one irrelevant; the modern defender, two rubbers of opposite nature. That variable — how alike or how different the two faces of the bat are — turns out to be one of the clearest indicators of which style a set-up belongs to, as set out in discussing asymmetry in 15.3 and 11.4.
The table does not aim to prescribe specific combinations or particular models — that belongs to chapters 7, 11 and 12, where the diagnosis of the player is translated into buying decisions. Its function is to close the chapter with a comparative image that makes visible what the individual sections explain separately: that each style imposes an equipment logic of its own, and that building the right bat starts with knowing which of these logics one's own game answers to.