- Dec 8, 2013
- 10
- 0
I like the The Coaches Review website for durability issues but not for subjective opinions such as "pop" or "looks prettier than." Of the 7 negative reviewers, two from Oct 2013 are obviously the same personI see that on the "coach reviews" website, only 72% recommend the LXT. The sample size is pretty small (25 reviews), but still that's a pretty disappointing number. By way of comparison, the Easton Mako has 41 reviews, and 95% are favorable.
Edit to add that the other night I took my DD to a local D2 hitting clinic and saw a bunch of 13 year old girs using the LXT. I know these girls very well as my DD helped coach them last Winter and Spring, and I just couldn't believe how well (and how hard) they were hitting the ball with the LXT. The improvement over last year was incredible. I'm not saying that that's due to the LXT, but the ball was screaming off their bats.
and three other reviewers saying the Xeno and the much heavier Rocketech were just better does not really make the LXT bad. I would worry more about the folks saying something broke or got loose. Only 2 of 25 actually found something wrong or a possible 92% positive.This Louisville Slugger LXT bat is not a good bat. Y’all need to lower the price.
Anyway, My DD has a 2013 Xeno 31/21 and a 2014 LXT 32/22. She hits with more power using the LXT, ie. the ball appears to launches off the bat quicker in soft toss. I wish I had the money to buy that Zepp Swing Tool to measure bat speed. She prefers using the Xeno right now because it is lighter and I won't let her use the LXT with machine pitch.
She plans to use the LXT for her school games. When she does, I'll give a more detailed opinion.