seguso on 10/4/2013
Bluefire m1: the ultimate fh rubber for advanced or pro players.
Most notable feature: m1 holds up well when you counterloop with a lot of power; when you miss, you know it is your fault; to the contrary, with mxp or m2, often you feel like it was the rubber which did not hold up to the power. Only t05 is as reliable as m1 in this regard.
Style of play: rubber only for the forehand of very good (advanced or pro) powerloopers who consistently hit very hard and never need controlled loops.
in particular, when you have a dead ball (i.e. a flat ball or a slow block), with m1 you can only
1) kill with a powerloop (which will be low over the net; so you need to have the precision); or
2) make a loop with a lot of brush and a lot of power; (not a brush loop, but a loop where the brush component is large)
you can never do a controlled loop, or a controlled loop-drive, like you would with m2. if you try, the ball won't sink in the sponge and it will fall.
to summarize: with m1 you always need to use a lot of power; but, against dead balls, most of this power must go into brushing.
Comparison with m2 and m3:
m2: on fh this is for intermediate loopers, who do not consistently hit with all their power, and need to generate spin in controlled loops with medium power.
m3: bh rubber for amateur loopers who try to loop the receive, so they need be able to play controlled loops with little power and thin contact.
hardness: for black version: m1 has a hard sponge and hard topsheet. the rubber is harder than t05; harder than mxp; much harder than m2; harder than rakza 9. as hard as dhs rubbers (but faster). --- As a result, the ball won't sink in controlled loops, so you don't get spin in rally with half power. you only get spin when you hit very hard. red version: the red topsheet is softer. the difference with black is quite noticeable. M1 red feels much more similar to Mxp. However, it retains the counterloop reliability of black, and is still more reliable than mxp.
Speed: for the black version: much faster than MXP, T05. Much faster than Rakza 9. M2 can be faster at medium power, but is slower in counterloops at full power. red version: red is slower. The difference with black is again very noticeable. M1 red is more or less as fast as MXP.
Block: with m1 it can be difficult to block. (because the throw depends a lot on the power of the incoming loop). OTOH, it is meant for the forehand of good players, who never block with fh, but counterloop. :)
Loops: the upside: counterloop with m1 is very reliable, whereas rubbers such as m2 and mxp are not. The only rubbers I know which are as realiable as m1 in counterloop are T05, and DHS rubbers. --- The downside is that loops are difficult, because the throw depends a lot on how much the ball sinks, and therefore on the speed of the incoming loop. So you have to pay a lot of attention to the speed of the incoming loop, not only to its spin. (this is different from m2. )
throw angle: low when the ball does not sink in the sponge, medium-high when it does. a bit lower than t05 and mxp. higher than rakza 9. Like m2 but with differences due to hardness.
comparison with mxp: m1 is a lot more reliable and consistent at high power. mxp becomes unpredictable counterlooping at high power; with m1, if you miss it's your fault. mxp has slightly higher throw, as I said (but it is of little use, because it seems to randomly flatten at high power).
comparison with rakza 9: m1 is similar to rakza 9, but harder, especially the topsheet, faster, and higher throw.
compared with m2, m1 is much harder and more reliable in counterloop.
m1 works great on clipper wood, a stiff and soft blade.
caratoon 11 months ago
YOU NEED TO ALREADY HAVE GREAT CONTROL IF YOU GET THIS RUBBER. The speed is equal or faster than Tenergy 05. Spin is about equal. When you block you can feel that it is less reactive to incoming spin than Tenergy but the control you have over placement is greatly lower. Looping is a dream from mid to long distance. I loop from mid and block and do controlled topspins close to the table and the speed is great for blocks.
Blocker99 on 12/25/2014
Now I have my second sheet of Bluefire M1 and I must say: It´s a really great rubber!
If you want a rubber that provides high spin and speed when(!) you hit hard then it´s the perfect rubber for you but if you play with lesser force or you play a brush loop or a chop then the rubber is very slow and creates very much spin.
I think the rating of the Bluefire M1 is wrong because you must have a very good technique and a good arm-acceleration to "activate" the rubber and I think that the most people have not that technique and those people should choose the Bluefire M2 or Acuda s1 becuase the spin is easier to create and the rubber has a higher basic speed/catapult.
Amilcar 2 months ago
Excellent offensive rubber with better control and lower throw angle then I expected.I also use JP02 but in T11+ blade.IMO M1 is great on my Nittaku Ludeak suitable on softer wood.
dave48228 6 months ago
I can generate a lot of torque easily against any incoming shot (top or chop)... which is rare (and nice)... AND on serve... maybe even 'especially' on serve).
Was scared away a bit at first because speed is given a higher rating than spin. Well, you can hit a hard, medium-spin ball, but you can ALSO hit a hard, super-hi-spin ball... since it will "grab" if you let it. That makes it my pick for both BH AND FH (a 'subtle' advantage for things like when rubbers wear out at different times... and you just want to "flip over" to the "better" side (on your strong wing) temporarily until you get new sheet(s).
I did not notice a difference between the M1 and M1-Turbo in terms of playability... but the M1 (regular) is MUCH lighter (the Turbo seems chinese-rubber-heavy in my opinion)... so in that regard, I really like the regular M1 better since I use a (med-fast... to med) full-size blade... and have a higher swing speed (mostly) for (generally) close-to-the-table play.
Overall, I love it... plus it's got killer-cool blue sponge (Note generally I'm a 'max' user, but 2.0 works really well (with the increased consistency (thickness-wise) of 2.0.)