OOAK Table Tennis Forum

That is a common misunderstanding. Any frictionless rubber, be it LP or anti, works for classic defense, as it is capable of bringing the ball back unto the table safely. Frictionless anti generally works even better than frictionless LP did, as it is possible to vary spin (some) with it. Buffalo works at least as well for classic defense as did/do ABS or Anti Special, and they were.are very reliable for it. Of course you can't expect wonders, but then that is true for classic defense with any antispin rubber. Or any LP, for that...

_________________
Without opponent, no match.

Finally got my sheet of Buffalo in today.

I currently use Tibhar C-O-S3 (a slow blade) with OX Grass D.Tecs (which is pretty fast as far as LPs go). Anyway, I glued Buffalo up to a C-O-S3, so if Buffalo is slower than D.Tecs with more spin reversal, I'll be very happy.

On the other hand, I remember Super Block (very slow) wasn't that effective on a really slow blade, so I'm not completely confident that this combination will work out.

I guess I'll find out in the coming week.

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out. | My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

My whole set-up costs less than a sheet of Butterfly Dignics

I did not say you could not defend with frictionless anti but it is designed and more effective for a blocking game at the table. At least I don't any good chopper with frictionless anti but I do know a few blockers at the table.

_________________
Equipment:
OSP Ultimate, FH: Dr. Neubauer Dominance Spin Hard 2.1, BH: Dr. Neubauer Troublemaker 0.5
YouTube channel: "AntiRules"

Please keep us posted how it goes. If it turns out too slow you could try the Grubba Carbon.

_________________
Equipment:
OSP Ultimate, FH: Dr. Neubauer Dominance Spin Hard 2.1, BH: Dr. Neubauer Troublemaker 0.5
YouTube channel: "AntiRules"

No offense, but your definition of "good chopper" seems limited. There are, for example, successful choppers using frictionless anti in the German second-best leagues. And if you limit "good" to pro players, there is only one close to the table player there using frictionless anti, Amy Solja, and she doesn't block much. So I can't see how your argument is valid. Anyway, what I hinted at is that commonly held opinions in table tennis (and not just in table tennis) are often based more on prejudice than on established fact. There is one specific reason why pro choppers do not use frictionless anti, nor LP in OX (or rarely): it is much, much harder to vary spin with these rubbers and spin-variation is thought to be a necessary part of contemporary modern defense. Still, this reason as such is not enough to disqualify low/no friction rubbers for defensive equipment, for even if they were never popular among pro players, some used them with great success. Liang Geliang incomparably defended with low friction LP in OX; so did Lo Chuen Tsung; that was in the '70s and '80s. They had no real successors (although in China this isn't true), for since then, attackers' equipment has made much more progress than defenders', and some new rules put defenders at a disadvantage as well; as a result, few talented players (and especially Western players) are inclined or encouraged to play defense and those who do are even less inclined to take the extra risk of using what nowadays is deemed an unconventional rubber - for pro players, that is. But it has never been proven that using no/low friction rubbers actually is a disadvantage and it is perfectly conceivable that players with certain odd (i.e. non-mainstream) predelections and talents would do very well with them. Amy Solja has proven that for her own very individual style.

Apart from that, I can think of no reason why a rubber (or other piece of equipment) that works for less capable defenders, should be less suitable for defense. And how can it be "more effective" for blocking if it wins points with chopping as well? Suppose that the rubber is effective for good blockers, but for moderate defenders - which I would contend - does that make it a moderately effective rubber for defense? Certainly not for the moderate defender, and as there quite a few of them, I would say the rubber serves a purpose in this respect and serves it well.

_________________
Without opponent, no match.

I am not trying to argue with you but I guess I still disagree with you. I do believe I have the same definition of a chopper as you have and I am not restricting to pros.
Could you name the choppers that play with frictionless anti? I am not aware of any and I am originally from Germany and do follow the TT over there. By the way, classic antis like BTY Super anti do not count as frictionless anti but only the antis made by Dr. Neubauer and Materialspezialist. I would argue that Solja is a blocker/counter player at the table though. She does not go away from the table and never chops. There are a few higher level players who block with frictionless anti at the table like Simon Huth (Dr. N Anti Special), Jens Gester (not sure), Maik Schonknecht (Dr. N Buffalo) or Amir Ahmed (MSP B.A.D.).

_________________
Equipment:
OSP Ultimate, FH: Dr. Neubauer Dominance Spin Hard 2.1, BH: Dr. Neubauer Troublemaker 0.5
YouTube channel: "AntiRules"

No problem, a good discussion with different points of view has the benefit of furthering insight Let's see if we can put together useful information about this anti for moderate players, which is the majority in the game anyway. Your review points out it offers low speed (lower than ABS), high control (higher than ABS), decreased angle sensitivity, high passive reversal (meaning the ball will slide on the rubber, retaining its spin). That certainly makes it a good blocking rubber. But a chopper using it would profit from its qualities in his close to the table part of his game (service reception, short play) as well. And a mid-level chopper would also value its high control and its low speed for his defense away from the table, as they would allow him to defend from mid-distance (instead of long distance); the advantage would be that it makes it easier to return to the table to deal with short returns and to get into position for counter-attack. Furthermore, the rubber's high reversal would guarantee a chopper a solid defense (provided he is capable of forcing the opponent to use significant topspin). So, as I see it, a chopper would have all the benefits a blocker would have and then some.

I’d like to explain my motivation here: I want to inform players how equipment can help to get the best out of them. Neubauer’s stuff has (I think deliberately) always been designed to help out players who can’t or won’t go along with the mainstream type of play, which is making the game as fast as possible, using heaps of power. The doctor’s designs tend to help to absorb or reverse that power, turning it against the opponent. I do sympathize with that line of thought and I think it deserves more appreciation than it gets. When around 2008 the ban on frictionless LP’s was discussed, one of the main pro-ban arguments was that this equipment enabled mediocre players to compete at a level higher than they would be able to get to without it. That argument is completely invalid, in my opinion. First of all, it echoes a haughty kind of resentment, as if “mediocre” players should know their place instead of bothering their betters using dirty tricks. Nonsense. A good sport should see a player using frictionless rubber as a challenge and welcome it. Second, from a neutral point of view, a fast and spinny inverted rubber is as much a dirty trick as is a slow slick LP (or anti). There is no reason why a loop would be, as such, superior to a chop or a block or a no-spin drive; nor is there any valid ground to consider the ability to loop as a criterion for belonging to a “better” class of players. To loop effectively you need a lot of physical power; to declare this a superior quality is to scorn the physically less powerful, which is objectionable, to me. Third, if the less powerful find a way to compete on equal terms with the powerful, this should be welcomed as it makes the sport more diverse and in a moral sense more fair as well. So, I think Neubauer’s designs are an asset to the sport (I only wish his prices would be more reasonable) and that is why I’d like to see any review of his equipment point out how it can help “mediocre” players – of all kinds.

_________________
Without opponent, no match.

I think Kees essentially mentioned this as part of his argument. But citing the lack of an existing Anti player at the higher levels who chops is irrelevant. The reason for their absence begins and ends with the fact that anti has always been an obscure rubber not used by many people. There just simply isn't a large enough talent pool for which to choose from for both players and coaches. And the lack of people in the talent pool is exactly why there are no pro-anti choppers. Statistically, if 1 in 300,000 (Yes, I pulled those numbers out of my arse) players has the talent to make it in the top 200, considering the percentage of players that actually use anti, and then use anti as a chopping rubber in that sample size, you're just never going to get a guy at the pro level who plays that style.

I also find the variablility argument for chopping while relevenat, to be over blown. Sure it's an element and a good tactic, but there are other ways to vary spin and play even in chopping. There is a solution to every puzzle with any type of equipment.

_________________
Blog: "Holy Chtchet!" ⇝

Projects: Player Equipment Grid ⇝ Comprehensive Thin Inverted Chopping Rubbers Grid ⇝ Please send me corrections or new submissions

_________________
Without opponent, no match.

I was talking about choppers with frictionless anti since Buffalo is a frictionless anti. This is not to confuse with classic antis such as BTY Super Anti for example. And there are some examples of higher level players chopping with classic anti for example Peter Igel from Germany; his TTR currently is 2072 which would give him a USATT of around 2420. But you are also correct when you say that anti players are a rare bread.
To continue the discussion specifically on the Buffalo, you can chop with it which I sometimes do in practice sessions but rarely in matches. You can safely put the ball back on the table since it has good control but the spin only gets heavy after several loop-chop sequences. I don't think the Buffalo would work for chopping away from the table with a very slow blade since it is pretty slow itself but it does absorb the pace of fast loop quite nicely. I think in combination with twiddling, so that you can chop no spin balls with inverted, you could make a classic defense game work, but I believe the Buffalo has clearly been designed for blocking at the table. Because it is so slow and absorbs the pace, it is the first frictionless anti (at least that I have tested) which allows you to block fast drives.

_________________
Equipment:
OSP Ultimate, FH: Dr. Neubauer Dominance Spin Hard 2.1, BH: Dr. Neubauer Troublemaker 0.5
YouTube channel: "AntiRules"

Now I completely agree with you.

I also agree with you regarding Dr. Neubauer's stuff. I think it's good for the sport to have guys like him or the Materialspezialist around as they are innovative and don't just produce another rubber which half a dozen other companies already offer. They both have higher prices because they produce in smaller volumes but the quality is quite good.

Coming back to the Buffalo, one thing I would like to add, is that the reversal is the heaviest on just a passive block against topspin. That is its biggest weapon which I is why I believe it is designed for blocking at the table. By the way, there are other frictionless antis like Grizzly or Gorilla, which have a similarly strong reversal as Buffalo but they are much faster, more difficult to control and don't absorb the pace as well as Buffalo. On chopping, which is does quite well, you seem to need several chop-loop sequences to load the ball up. I am not really an expert on this part though and it would be nice if an experience chopper could test the Buffalo in that regard and report back here.

_________________
Equipment:
OSP Ultimate, FH: Dr. Neubauer Dominance Spin Hard 2.1, BH: Dr. Neubauer Troublemaker 0.5
YouTube channel: "AntiRules"

which of course only is true when compared soley to other products from dr.neubauer

_________________
Blade: Barna Original Triumph Forehand Yasaka Razka Po Backhand Der-Materialspezialist Störkraft 0.8
http://www.instagram.com/dragontattooguy

Correct, as I have not tested any antis from Der Materialspezialist so I have no comparison in that regard.

_________________
Equipment:
OSP Ultimate, FH: Dr. Neubauer Dominance Spin Hard 2.1, BH: Dr. Neubauer Troublemaker 0.5
YouTube channel: "AntiRules"

To put this into perspective (for choppers): a passive block with slick anti produces better reversal than an active block, because an active block moves against the incoming spin, so the sponge tends to absorb some of it. A chop-block, which means going with the incoming spin, so the spin isn't absorbed, theoretically can add some spin as the sponge might grip the ball a bit, but in practice when you are close to the table you often have little time to complete that stroke, and you are at risk of going against the direction of the ball (bumping into it) which means the sponge would absorb more of the incoming spin than when you would just hold out your bat. All in all, even if it is done well, a chop-block will likely produce similar amounts of reversal as a passive block at the most. It wouldn't add much spin anyway as only the sponge grips the ball (and not much at that), not the top-sheet. But when you really chop, away from the table, you go with the incoming spin, and there is no risk of going against the ball (if you chop well, grazing it, you will minimize the impact on the sponge, so the sponge will not diminish the reversal), and you do have the time to complete the stroke, so you have a much better chance of adding some spin to the incoming spin and produce really heavy backspin. In other words, if an anti-spin rubber reverses spin well with passive blocking, you can be certain that it will do at least as well with good chopping. There is a potential draw-back, though, viz. the distance to the table - the chopped ball will lose some of its spin if it has to travel a long way. But with this anti, because it is so slow, you don't have to retreat far and you should be able to chop reliably from mid-distance, which means the ball will hardly lose any backspin.

_________________
Without opponent, no match.

What an excellent post... worth emphasizing

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide