OOAK Table Tennis Forum :: New balls to be .75mm larger?

Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors.

They would make good car salesmen.

You can find the proposed changes at the 2011 AGM and whether they passed or failed here:

http://www.ittf.com/world_events/wttc_2 ... pdated.pdf

You really can't conclude what you've concluded from the available information. You'd have to know more precisely what the typical ball diameter is and how much each ball varies. The tolerances for the new non-celluloid balls are tighter and the mid-point of the ranges is about .3mm higher. The maximum allowable diameter of a single ball is only .1mm greater than before. So if you had to guess, you might guess that the average balls diameter measurement would increase by .2-.3 mm. But that would still just be a guess.

To modify Technical Leaflet T3, The Ball (B.3 Size conformity); only
applying to balls not made of celluloid
The minimum diameter of every ball must be at least [39.50mm]
40.00mm and its maximum diameter must not exceed [40.50mm]
40.60mm. The sample mean average diameter, i.e. the mean of the
average of the maximum and minimum diameters for each ball,
must be in the range [39.60-40.40mm] 40.00-40.50mm. Values
below [39.25mm] 39.70mm or above 40.75mm are considered in our
calculations as outliers.

smoke and mirrors Hookshot? Maybe that, or maybe just good old wool pulled over the eyes! Oh wait! Wool has fibres! Maybe that will be banned worldwide soon too! Not to mention the Sheep eat grass, which is also a base to cellulose...ask Rodderz, he knows about Sheep

Looking at this neutrally, disregarding possible malevolent intentions, in the present situation balls can be anywhere between 39.25 mm and 40.75 mm - this is what is allowed...

As for replacing celluloid by plastic, as far as I know this means that the ball will be more resistant to deformation - which means it will be easier to control and bounce higher - and will likely have a smoother surface - which means that it will have less air-resistance, so it will keep its speed and spin longer, and spin-reversal on pips or anti will be better. The fact that the ball will bounce higher means it will be easier for an attacker to hit against backspin, but the better control means that the defender will be able better to keep the ball low. More spin and spin-reversal is good for the defender, better speed is good for the attacker. So it would seem pro's and con's for defenders and attackers even out. Except that a modern defender also attacks, so he or she will only benefit...

The values between brackets are the old ones to be replaced by the black ones.
Looking at this neutrally, disregarding possible malevolent intentions, in the present situation balls can be anywhere between 39.25 mm and 40.75 mm - this is what is allowed. I guess manufacturers will maintain quality control only inasfar as they really need to, so this variation probably actually exists. There is a fair chance, then, that several of us have been playing with balls of, say, 40.6 mm in diameter several times; in other words we have already been playing with "bigger" balls. So nothing changes, except that in the new situation the probablity of playing with a ball of a diameter less than 40 mm is much smaller. That means of course that the probablity of playing with a bigger ball will relatively increase, but it does not mean that you will be playing with a ball that is completely new to you.

There is a fair chance, then, that several of us have been playing with balls of, say, 40.6 mm in diameter several times; in other words we have already been playing with "bigger" balls. So nothing changes

Kees wrote:

Adham himself has stated there is no 40mm ball in the world. Now he's making sure they are all *at least* 40mm.

So in short, the 40mm ball rule change did increase ball size by 2mm. This new rule change seems to be changing the ball size by about .4mm - possibly more.

There is almost no chance that any "40mm" ball you or I have played with is 40.6mm in diameter. In fact, the typical modern TT ball is usually within .1mm of 39.65mm and fairly consistently so.

wturber wrote:

So in short, the 40mm ball rule change did increase ball size by 2mm. This new rule change seems to be changing the ball size by about .4mm - possibly more.

If the current average is 39.65 and if the new average is the median for the 40 - 40.50 range, i.e. 40.25 then the average increase would be .6mm rather than .4. But if the average ball (39.65) is not in fact an average ball, but the current average is 39.95mm and if the new average ball is 40.05mm then the increase is .1mm. Or if the current average is 39.65 and if the new average is 40.5 then the increase would be .85mm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All of which goes to prove nothing. We don't know what the current average is; we don't know what the future current average will be; in short we don't know very much at all. But I'm sure that won't stop us from obsessing about worst case scenarios.

wturber wrote:

There is almost no chance that any "40mm" ball you or I have played with is 40.6mm in diameter. In fact, the typical modern TT ball is usually within .1mm of 39.65mm and fairly consistently so.

Perhaps it might be helpful to recognise the consistency with which balls are made - "usually within .1mm". If that is correct, then we can expect the new balls to also be a consistent size. If the manufacturers get it right, then it will be a tad over 40mm and the original intention of the 40mm ball rule will be fulfilled.

The fact that the ball will bounce higher means it will be easier for an attacker to hit against backspin, but the better control means that the defender will be able better to keep the ball low.

It's nice to read something which starts without too many presuppositions about other people's intentions.

All of which goes to prove nothing. We don't know what the current average is; we don't know what the future current average will be; in short we don't know very much at all. But I'm sure that won't stop us from obsessing about worst case scenarios.

There is almost no chance that any "40mm" ball you or I have played with is 40.6mm in diameter. In fact, the typical modern TT ball is usually within .1mm of 39.65mm and fairly consistently so.

Author:	roundrobin [ 15 Sep 2011, 06:21 ]
Post subject:	Re: New balls to be .75mm larger?
hookshot wrote: Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors. They would make good car salesmen. No need to... To many of us, they are already exceptionally slimy power-drunk politicians. Lies and more lies... It's mind-boggling that they think they can keep doing it without consequences. The future for table tennis does not look too bright to me with a divide-and-conquer leader at the top, whose favorite phrase is "we do what we want, you follow us if you want"... LOL

Author:	RebornTTEvnglist [ 15 Sep 2011, 12:49 ]
Post subject:	Re: New balls to be .75mm larger?
It amazes me that changes like these can be considered based upon "story-telling". There is a little thing called "EVIDENCE" that is usually required to back up the story. Where is the EVIDENCE that workers have been hurt by either fibre inhalation or explosion? I'd be the first to accept a "broken feeling plastic ball" if I was shown EVIDENCE that it was saving people's lives to use instead of the celluloid ball. I have combed the net for something to suggest this case be true, but have found nothing. I don't think my resources are that great, so I accept a web search MAY not turn up the right details, but it seems that others who have greater resources than me have the same problem. Adham replied in his thread about workers being under threat of cancer from breathing cellulose fibres, but he did not back it up with any empirical evidence. Is that because there is none, or because its a secret??? If people have died and its been swept under the rug to protect big business then maybe its time to expose it? However, it seems strange that 2 members from the same committee have 2 different stories about the dangers of the process. Reminds me of the cop shows where they separate the crooks and question them to see if their stories match up. Smoke and mirrors Hookshot? Maybe that, or maybe just good old wool pulled over the eyes! Oh wait! Wool has fibres! Maybe that will be banned worldwide soon too! Not to mention the Sheep eat grass, which is also a base to cellulose...ask Rodderz, he knows about Sheep

Author:	Kees [ 08 Nov 2011, 19:46 ]
Post subject:	Re: New balls to be .75mm larger?
wturber wrote: Quote: You can find the proposed changes at the 2011 AGM and whether they passed or failed here: http://www.ittf.com/world_events/wttc_2 ... pdated.pdf You really can't conclude what you've concluded from the available information. You'd have to know more precisely what the typical ball diameter is and how much each ball varies. The tolerances for the new non-celluloid balls are tighter and the mid-point of the ranges is about .3mm higher. The maximum allowable diameter of a single ball is only .1mm greater than before. So if you had to guess, you might guess that the average balls diameter measurement would increase by .2-.3 mm. But that would still just be a guess. The list of decisions refered to says only this about the balls: Quote: To modify Technical Leaflet T3, The Ball (B.3 Size conformity); only applying to balls not made of celluloid The minimum diameter of every ball must be at least [39.50mm] 40.00mm and its maximum diameter must not exceed [40.50mm] 40.60mm. The sample mean average diameter, i.e. the mean of the average of the maximum and minimum diameters for each ball, must be in the range [39.60-40.40mm] 40.00-40.50mm. Values below [39.25mm] 39.70mm or above 40.75mm are considered in our calculations as outliers. The values between brackets are the old ones to be replaced by the black ones. Looking at this neutrally, disregarding possible malevolent intentions, in the present situation balls can be anywhere between 39.25 mm and 40.75 mm - this is what is allowed. I guess manufacturers will maintain quality control only inasfar as they really need to, so this variation probably actually exists. There is a fair chance, then, that several of us have been playing with balls of, say, 40.6 mm in diameter several times; in other words we have already been playing with "bigger" balls. So nothing changes, except that in the new situation the probablity of playing with a ball of a diameter less than 40 mm is much smaller. That means of course that the probablity of playing with a bigger ball will relatively increase, but it does not mean that you will be playing with a ball that is completely new to you. As for replacing celluloid by plastic, as far as I know this means that the ball will be more resistant to deformation - which means it will be easier to control and bounce higher - and will likely have a smoother surface - which means that it will have less air-resistance, so it will keep its speed and spin longer, and spin-reversal on pips or anti will be better. The fact that the ball will bounce higher means it will be easier for an attacker to hit against backspin, but the better control means that the defender will be able better to keep the ball low. More spin and spin-reversal is good for the defender, better speed is good for the attacker. So it would seem pro's and con's for defenders and attackers even out. Except that a modern defender also attacks, so he or she will only benefit...

Author:	rodderz [ 08 Nov 2011, 19:55 ]
Post subject:	Re: New balls to be .75mm larger?
Quote: smoke and mirrors Hookshot? Maybe that, or maybe just good old wool pulled over the eyes! Oh wait! Wool has fibres! Maybe that will be banned worldwide soon too! Not to mention the Sheep eat grass, which is also a base to cellulose...ask Rodderz, he knows about Sheep then we sell them to the Aussies to eat Im worried about the robots I have ? and will the new ball fit?

Author:	Tassie52 [ 08 Nov 2011, 20:35 ]
Post subject:	Re: New balls to be .75mm larger?
Kees wrote: Looking at this neutrally, disregarding possible malevolent intentions, in the present situation balls can be anywhere between 39.25 mm and 40.75 mm - this is what is allowed... Thanks for this post, Kees. It's nice to read something which starts without too many presuppositions about other people's intentions. Kees wrote: As for replacing celluloid by plastic, as far as I know this means that the ball will be more resistant to deformation - which means it will be easier to control and bounce higher - and will likely have a smoother surface - which means that it will have less air-resistance, so it will keep its speed and spin longer, and spin-reversal on pips or anti will be better. The fact that the ball will bounce higher means it will be easier for an attacker to hit against backspin, but the better control means that the defender will be able better to keep the ball low. More spin and spin-reversal is good for the defender, better speed is good for the attacker. So it would seem pro's and con's for defenders and attackers even out. Except that a modern defender also attacks, so he or she will only benefit... Of course, when you start without presuppositions you just might finish up in a position which isn't already predetermined.

OOAK Table Tennis Forum https://ooakforum.com/

New balls to be .75mm larger? https://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=17108	Page 4 of 6

Author:	Lorre [ 08 Nov 2011, 23:31 ]
Post subject:	Re: New balls to be .75mm larger?
Kees wrote: As for replacing celluloid by plastic, as far as I know this means that the ball will be more resistant to deformation - which means it will be easier to control and bounce higher - and will likely have a smoother surface - which means that it will have less air-resistance, so it will keep its speed and spin longer, and spin-reversal on pips or anti will be better. The fact that the ball will bounce higher means it will be easier for an attacker to hit against backspin, but the better control means that the defender will be able better to keep the ball low. More spin and spin-reversal is good for the defender, better speed is good for the attacker. So it would seem pro's and con's for defenders and attackers even out. Except that a modern defender also attacks, so he or she will only benefit... I hope your last sentences are right, I really do.

Author:	wturber [ 09 Nov 2011, 00:27 ]
Post subject:	Re: New balls to be .75mm larger?
Kees wrote: The values between brackets are the old ones to be replaced by the black ones. Looking at this neutrally, disregarding possible malevolent intentions, in the present situation balls can be anywhere between 39.25 mm and 40.75 mm - this is what is allowed. I guess manufacturers will maintain quality control only inasfar as they really need to, so this variation probably actually exists. There is a fair chance, then, that several of us have been playing with balls of, say, 40.6 mm in diameter several times; in other words we have already been playing with "bigger" balls. So nothing changes, except that in the new situation the probablity of playing with a ball of a diameter less than 40 mm is much smaller. That means of course that the probablity of playing with a bigger ball will relatively increase, but it does not mean that you will be playing with a ball that is completely new to you. I suggest you measure some balls. There is almost no chance that any "40mm" ball you or I have played with is 40.6mm in diameter. In fact, they typical modern TT ball is usually within .1mm of 39.65mm and fairly consistently so. These things are pressed into shape using precision metal molds and they simply do not vary as much as the rules theoretically allow. Three star and even training balls are precision made and tested for consistency. Kees wrote: As for replacing celluloid by plastic, as far as I know this means that the ball will be more resistant to deformation - which means it will be easier to control and bounce higher - and will likely have a smoother surface - which means that it will have less air-resistance, so it will keep its speed and spin longer, and spin-reversal on pips or anti will be better. The fact that the ball will bounce higher means it will be easier for an attacker to hit against backspin, but the better control means that the defender will be able better to keep the ball low. More spin and spin-reversal is good for the defender, better speed is good for the attacker. So it would seem pro's and con's for defenders and attackers even out. Except that a modern defender also attacks, so he or she will only benefit... Celluloid is a form of plastic. They haven't been particularly specific about the actual plastic formulation that is being used in the new balls. So it would be hard to conclude much by the simple mention of the fact that they are plastic. The stated goal is and should be to have a bounce similar to the current balls. A smooth surface can be roughed up. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's how the celluloid balls get their rough surfaces. Also, an irregular surface can actually exhibit less drag depending on its velocity. That why golf balls have dimples. It makes them fly further due to less, not more, air friction.

Author:	YosuaYosan [ 09 Nov 2011, 00:52 ]
Post subject:	Re: New balls to be .75mm larger?
Kees wrote: As for replacing celluloid by plastic, as far as I know this means that the ball will be more resistant to deformation - which means it will be easier to control and bounce higher - and will likely have a smoother surface - which means that it will have less air-resistance, so it will keep its speed and spin longer, and spin-reversal on pips or anti will be better. The fact that the ball will bounce higher means it will be easier for an attacker to hit against backspin, but the better control means that the defender will be able better to keep the ball low. More spin and spin-reversal is good for the defender, better speed is good for the attacker. So it would seem pro's and con's for defenders and attackers even out. Except that a modern defender also attacks, so he or she will only benefit... I just hope it will be so sir Kees

Author:	mynamenotbob [ 09 Nov 2011, 01:03 ]
Post subject:	Re: New balls to be .75mm larger?
Kees wrote: There is a fair chance, then, that several of us have been playing with balls of, say, 40.6 mm in diameter several times; in other words we have already been playing with "bigger" balls. So nothing changes Adham himself has stated there is no 40mm ball in the world. Now he's making sure they are all at least 40mm.

Author:	wturber [ 09 Nov 2011, 06:23 ]
Post subject:	Re: New balls to be .75mm larger?
mynamenotbob wrote: Kees wrote: There is a fair chance, then, that several of us have been playing with balls of, say, 40.6 mm in diameter several times; in other words we have already been playing with "bigger" balls. So nothing changes Adham himself has stated there is no 40mm ball in the world. Now he's making sure they are all at least 40mm. It seems as though there were never 38mm balls either. The 38mm Nittaku 3*** balls I have are around 37.6mm in diameter. So in short, the 40mm ball rule change did increase ball size by 2mm. This new rule change seems to be changing the ball size by about .4mm - possibly more.

Author:	Tassie52 [ 09 Nov 2011, 08:47 ]
Post subject:	Re: New balls to be .75mm larger?
wturber wrote: So in short, the 40mm ball rule change did increase ball size by 2mm. This new rule change seems to be changing the ball size by about .4mm - possibly more. If the current average is 39.65 and if the new average is the median for the 40 - 40.50 range, i.e. 40.25 then the average increase would be .6mm rather than .4. But if the average ball (39.65) is not in fact an average ball, but the current average is 39.95mm and if the new average ball is 40.05mm then the increase is .1mm. Or if the current average is 39.65 and if the new average is 40.5 then the increase would be .85mm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All of which goes to prove nothing. We don't know what the current average is; we don't know what the future current average will be; in short we don't know very much at all. But I'm sure that won't stop us from obsessing about worst case scenarios. wturber wrote: There is almost no chance that any "40mm" ball you or I have played with is 40.6mm in diameter. In fact, the typical modern TT ball is usually within .1mm of 39.65mm and fairly consistently so. Perhaps it might be helpful to recognise the consistency with which balls are made - "usually within .1mm". If that is correct, then we can expect the new balls to also be a consistent size. If the manufacturers get it right, then it will be a tad over 40mm and the original intention of the 40mm ball rule will be fulfilled.

Author:	roundrobin [ 09 Nov 2011, 09:01 ]
Post subject:	Re: New balls to be .75mm larger?
Tassie52 wrote: wturber wrote: So in short, the 40mm ball rule change did increase ball size by 2mm. This new rule change seems to be changing the ball size by about .4mm - possibly more. If the current average is 39.65 and if the new average is the median for the 40 - 40.50 range, i.e. 40.25 then the average increase would be .6mm rather than .4. But if the average ball (39.65) is not in fact an average ball, but the current average is 39.95mm and if the new average ball is 40.05mm then the increase is .1mm. Or if the current average is 39.65 and if the new average is 40.5 then the increase would be .85mm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All of which goes to prove nothing. We don't know what the current average is; we don't know what the future current average will be; in short we don't know very much at all. But I'm sure that won't stop us from obsessing about worst case scenarios. wturber wrote: There is almost no chance that any "40mm" ball you or I have played with is 40.6mm in diameter. In fact, the typical modern TT ball is usually within .1mm of 39.65mm and fairly consistently so. Perhaps it might be helpful to recognise the consistency with which balls are made - "usually within .1mm". If that is correct, then we can expect the new balls to also be a consistent size. If the manufacturers get it right, then it will be a tad over 40mm and the original intention of the 40mm ball rule will be fulfilled. Nobody is painting a doom and gloom scenario. The 0.4mm increase is real and that's what we are saying. If you are not well-informed please refrain from mocking us. I don't know why you like to stir things up where there's none.

Author:	Smartguy [ 09 Nov 2011, 09:34 ]
Post subject:	Re: New balls to be .75mm larger?
Kees wrote: The fact that the ball will bounce higher means it will be easier for an attacker to hit against backspin, but the better control means that the defender will be able better to keep the ball low. Yeah, the defender keeps the ball low and the ball bounces higher. Very logical.

Author:	Smartguy [ 09 Nov 2011, 09:38 ]
Post subject:	Re: New balls to be .75mm larger?
Tassie52 wrote: It's nice to read something which starts without too many presuppositions about other people's intentions. You probably mean the intentions behind telling the BS about a non-existing celluloid ban, right?

Page 4 of 6	All times are UTC + 9:30 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	wturber [ 09 Nov 2011, 09:44 ]
Post subject:	Re: New balls to be .75mm larger?
Tassie52 wrote: If the current average is 39.65 and if the new average is the median for the 40 - 40.50 range, i.e. 40.25 then the average increase would be .6mm rather than .4. But if the average ball (39.65) is not in fact an average ball, but the current average is 39.95mm and if the new average ball is 40.05mm then the increase is .1mm. Or if the current average is 39.65 and if the new average is 40.5 then the increase would be .85mm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's not much "if" to it. Quite a few of us have done a fair bit of measuring with calipers across a wide range of ball brands and qualities. That's where the 39.65mm comes from. That's why I said, .4mm - and maybe more. I'm allowing that it could be more than .4mm though I doubt that it will be much more if history is any indication. Tassie52 wrote: All of which goes to prove nothing. We don't know what the current average is; we don't know what the future current average will be; in short we don't know very much at all. But I'm sure that won't stop us from obsessing about worst case scenarios. Who is obsessing over worst case scenarios? I was giving something pretty close to the best case scenario as being the more likely situation. You may not know much, but I've actually done quite a bit of research on the topic. wturber wrote: There is almost no chance that any "40mm" ball you or I have played with is 40.6mm in diameter. In fact, the typical modern TT ball is usually within .1mm of 39.65mm and fairly consistently so. Tassie52 wrote: Perhaps it might be helpful to recognise the consistency with which balls are made - "usually within .1mm". If that is correct, then we can expect the new balls to also be a consistent size. If the manufacturers get it right, then it will be a tad over 40mm and the original intention of the 40mm ball rule will be fulfilled. Was the original intention to make a ball that was 40mm or to increase the existing ball diameter by 2mm? My assumption was that it was neither. My assumption was that the idea was to slow the ball down. This new non-rule seems to be another step toward doing that a little bit more. And if you look at how the rule was passed and the amount of misinformation being spread by top officials at the ITTF regarding this, you might be a little bit concerned. Personally, I hope the new ball is superior and great. But the heavy-handed tactics would not be necessary or even advisable if it were. So that leaves me a bit concerned.