OOAK Table Tennis Forum


A truly International Table Tennis Community for both Defensive and Offensive styles!
Live Table Tennis Videos Table Tennis News Live OOAK Forum Links About OOAK Table Tennis Forum OOAK Forum Memory
It is currently 24 Jan 2017, 04:32


Don't want to see any advertising? Become a member and login, and you'll never see an ad again!



All times are UTC + 9:30 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 458 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008, 05:51 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
RebornTTEvnglist wrote:
From small seeds big things grow NB! So Mr Scholer may well have slowly sown seeds of doubt about FLP in the right people's mind and its funny how observations of reality become stronger when your focus is directed toward them. So perhaps from there it simply snowballed into becoming a majority thought. They do say that if you can get enough people to think the same thing, pretty much anything in the universe can be accomplished! :wink:


There was never a conspiracy led by Mr. Scholer. As a matter of fact the Germans in the ITTF are notorious for NOT lobbying. They present their case the best they can and often do not get it through because they do not lobby. In this case, there was a clear majority in favour of this rule. Let;s give Mr. Scholer a break and give him all the respect he deserves. He is also a first class Gentleman.

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008, 05:58 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
antipip wrote:
Reb / Adham: I've seen the posts saying the majority support this just not why it's supported. This is all i'm after. The reason why it is thought to be detrimental to the sport and banning it is in the interests of the sport. I accept the decisions been made. If they feel the majority of players would support this there should be no problem with explaining their decision. It should be majority rule in a democracy.

Reb just because a body supports it doesn't mean the players they represent do. I was never asked were you?

Case in point : My government won't let me vote on europe despite a manifesto pledge that they would on the grounds of the treaty been changed (most would accept they've been minor changes). Why won't they ask the question, a cynic or is that a realistic person would think it's because they won't get the answer they want and believe is best for the majority (or themselves more likely). Even worse in Ireland they have been told to vote again as they got it wrong (and will get certain appeasements for voting 'correctly'. At the very least our government should give us a vote to get our share of appeasements too. Oh and so we can still say no.
Sorry to be political here, but it's agood analogy. I don't believe this is the way a democracy should act and note I am not suggesting the ITTF are like my politicians.

I am however concerned about how the sports governing body have acted. People are elected and in charge and need to make decisions. I have no problem with that but a retrospective ban is one decision I feel that should have neccessitated a mandate from all current players to be passed. It wasn't to my knowledge and is now gone. I accept it, i don't like it but I do accept it.

My own feeling is that it was banned because it required a 'passive' technique, easy to learn, effective up to a certain level, but ultimately limiting your level and indeed own ability and development of shots. No top players used it so I wouldn't have thought the image of that type of game would affect it. Therefore I suspect people (beginners, new players who didn't understand the rubber and techniques to use against it were been put off because they were losing to people with no perceived skill as opposed to losing because they had no skill. I would understand those reasons (skill development and numbers) for banning the rubber. It's a business, not a sport any more, like so many other games and is ultimately about numbers. I would like table tennis to survive in some form.
This is off topic but I don't like 11 up. The better player wins less often, serves and luck are more important. Tv only shows it from 8-8 anyway insteasd of 16-16. badminton had it forced on them and have compromised getting the game back to a more 'fair' point total (They play to 21 like we used too). I think we should have fought harder. For me sport has always been about improving yourself and playing your best. I want the best player to win that's why I prefer 21up.


I will explain the WHY again in a separate post. from a practival point of view the ITTF functions more or less like the United Nations. Our members are the national associations and they or their representatives vote at our meetings (AGM and Board of Directors). It would be impossible for the ITTF to consult every single player in the world (imagine China?) just like the United Nations would not be able to consult every person on earth. We depend on the national associations. In each national association there is a system. In the USA players are direct members of the Association, so they vote directly. But even there, the elected officials decide how they will vote at the ITTF level. They cannot consult the total player population on each issue. I'm sure you understand.

Now regarding 11 points versus 21 points, if I take your argument then perhaps 31 points is better, or even 41 points? Why 11 points? After many experiments it was found to be the logical reduction in the length of the game. By the way, this was proposed by the Athlete's Commission of the ITTF. Some food for thought: A Game in Tennis is 4 points !

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008, 06:00 
Offline
Super User
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2007, 09:24
Posts: 296
Location: Russia
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 13 times
[quote="rmaxwellusn"]In all honesty, how do you measure .08 mm. This seems very, very absurd.[/quote]
**********
Absurd ??! Are you sure to state so?
I am a graduated technician and the material meterings is my dayly job
http://urlcut.com/thickness-gauge
http://ttw.ru/images/articles/bty_measuring/5.jpg


Last edited by igorponger on 24 Dec 2008, 06:10, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008, 06:01 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
speedplay wrote:
You are right Adham,

we are luckily enough to have pretty good coaching educations here and the chairman of the club I play in have asked me to participate in one and become a coach. Hopefully I will do this, but with two small kids and a woman claiming that household work should be shared equally, it is sometimes hard to find all the time I want for Table Tennis.

Seeing how we are back on frictionless again, as many others, I would like to know why, not how, the rule was implemented. What was the reasons for the NA's to raise this question to begin with? Was it the suspicion of cheating (illegal post factory treatment) that caused the "ban"? If so, I will soon expect a lot of fast inverted rubbers being "banned" as I suspect some of them are treated with speed glue. So, a maximum speed limit will come soon?

Nope, I didn't think so. Actually, I don't wish for it either, but the cheating thing is the only reason I have heard as to why the minimum friction level was introduced.

Now, I'm going to stick out my neck here when I say, after seeing a game with a frictionless blocker (style that is, think he used a TTMaster rubber) I might actually be in favour of the ban. It doesn't look pretty. Then again, our game isn't about looking pretty, it is about winning and I honestly believe that the frictionless blocking style wouldn't be a long lived one. If to many players adapted to it, then the benefits would be gone as then a lot of players would be used to playing against it and then both the style and the rubber would put limits on the player.

So, while I'm 50/50 about the limit, I would still very much like to know why it was introduced to begin with.

Yes, it's pretty much as you describe it, but I will post a separate post just to explain the WHY.

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008, 06:04 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
kagin wrote:
adham wrote:
igorponger wrote:

******************
Dear Adham,
The T4 does set a number of strict limitations on the PSA sheets.
http://www.ittf.com/ittf_equipment/pdf/ ... s_2007.pdf
Page 5
Point 1.2.2 "....PSA may not be more than 0.1mm thick and may not be cellular.
It may consist of...a plastic film or a cellulosic paper."


Sometimes player may use a "handy-made" adhesive sheet of non-standard sizes and materials (foamed polyethilene, metallic foil, synthetical fabric, etc) to achieve the "disturbing" effect on his racket.
The Umpire should be able to see in a moment that the PSA sheet inside the racket is a legal (factory-made) product.
That`s why we do insist that all the PSA sheets, ITTF approved, should bear a producer`s LOGO + ITTF LOGO clearly visible all over the sheet`s surface.

Thanks


Yes, the description is to avoid an "added" second sponge, or an additive. Is the PSA sheet in question thicker than allowed? I have never seen it. Does it not meet all the requiremnets?
As for having logos on it how would the umpire see it if it already applied and is in between the racket covering and the blade?
Sorry, I am not very familiar with PSA sheets.


While i wouldn't presume to regulate the questions people ask here, i have to wonder about people who pose this particular type of question to adham. If you show up to play a tournament with a racket that has this particular device on it, the judgment of whether or not it's allowed will be up to the tournament referee. Asking adham rhetorically just to see what he's thinking - fine, but don't think that his answer can help you when the referee declares your racket illegal. Likewise with the repeated, dogged questioning about the service toss, it seems kind of pointless; the umpire will either call the fault or not, and that's based on their own judgment not adham's.

If you show up to my tournament this weekend (killerspin holiday open) and present a racket with dampfungsfolie on it, i'll ask you to bring out your spare. Likewise if you come to play with toni hold anti 0X or a metallic-painted kreanga carbon. By the way this past weekend i was presented a sheet of 0X long pips that was legal except there was so much glue that the effective rubber was over 2.0mm thick. Fortunately that was a voluntary check rather than an official one.


You can ask me any question you like. I am here to explain and shed a light on some of our rules. Of course I cannot change any existing rule or even claim that one is right or wrong. I can explain the common practice, the intent, what to watch for, etc. But the decision of the umpire at the table is the one you as a player have to live with as I am sure you all know.

So nothing wrong with you asking, and nothing wrong with me answering, as long as we agree that when you step in the tournament you are under the authority of the referee and the Umpires, and I can't help you then !

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008, 06:06 
Offline
Super User
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2007, 09:24
Posts: 296
Location: Russia
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 13 times
[quote="rmaxwellusn"]In all honesty, how do you measure .08 mm. This seems very, very absurd.[/quote]
**********
Absurd ??! Are you sure to state so?
I am a graduated technician and the material meterings is my dayly job
http://urlcut.com/thickness-gauge
http://ttw.ru/images/articles/bty_measuring/5.jpg


Last edited by igorponger on 24 Dec 2008, 06:13, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008, 06:08 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
kagin wrote:
adham wrote:
Slow down the Anti? My God, you will be getting negative speeds. If the ball will be that slow, I am confident I will beat all of you guys.
Seriously, what is the advantage of such a slow racket?

This hints at one of the many problems with the minimum friction limit that was recently imposed. The advantage of such a slow racket is superior control; the disadvantage is lack of versatility and lack of offensive capability. Table tennis is a game of speed and spin, and i'm with you in your sentiment - i am also confident that you will beat all of us if the ball is that slow. The lack of capacity to produce spin and speed is a huge disadvantage that a balanced player can learn to exploit; i'm pretty sure i've never lost a match against a player using frictionless long pips. But if someone chooses to use such equipment, why would we want to prevent that? Using such a crutch may help them extend the rally when they're on the defensive, but the better player will still win.


Good point. But would you accept a player showing up at the table with a 15mm thick sponge? That would also be a nice variety. In an earlier post I said that if it were left up to me I would allow players to play with anything they like including a frying pan (maybe someone could find this post). But the fact is that the members of the ITTF wish to set limits and wish to set standards. Once these are passed as rules, it is my duty to respect them.

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008, 06:11 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
kagin wrote:
adham wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the players that used to play with low friction pimples will adjust to their new equipment over time.


The top male player formerly using frictionless is akerstrom; here is his world ranking history:
6/1/08 - 327
7/1/08 - friction minimum introduced
8/1/08 - 321
9/1/08 - 301
9/14/08 - flanders open
10/1/08 - 292
11/1/08 - 277
11/23/08 - german open
11/30/08 - polish open
12/1/08 - 249

The top female player formerly using frictionless is solja; her ranking history:
6/1/08 - 130
7/1/08 - friction minimum introduced
7/20/08 - european youth championships
8/1/08 - 133
9/1/08 - 131
10/1/08 - 132
10/12/08 - european championships
11/1/08 - 132
11/30/08 - polish open
12/1/08 - 131

Based on these numbers, frictionless appears to have been a non-factor for professionals.

For non-professionals on the other hand, i know many players who have quit playing; others have spent many hundreds of dollars looking for rubber they can comfortably use, and are close to giving up the sport. This is ironic considering that the ittf has no direct jurisdiction over these players.

Allowing frictionless in some age categories but not others is not really possible in a small country (by table tennis standards) like the usa. Breaking from the ittf in this matter is not an option.


This proves my point, which I mentioned several times. With good technique the change of equipment will not affect you that much. The players you listed above must be players with good technique. Actually it is interesting to see one of them actaully progressed, very intersting.

Adham

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008, 06:20 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
RebornTTEvnglist wrote:
antipip wrote:
Reb / Adham: I've seen the posts saying the majority support this just not why it's supported. This is all i'm after. The reason why it is thought to be detrimental to the sport and banning it is in the interests of the sport. I accept the decisions been made. If they feel the majority of players would support this there should be no problem with explaining their decision. It should be majority rule in a democracy.

Reb just because a body supports it doesn't mean the players they represent do. I was never asked were you?

Case in point : My government won't let me vote on europe despite a manifesto pledge that they would on the grounds of the treaty been changed (most would accept they've been minor changes). Why won't they ask the question, a cynic or is that a realistic person would think it's because they won't get the answer they want and believe is best for the majority (or themselves more likely). Even worse in Ireland they have been told to vote again as they got it wrong (and will get certain appeasements for voting 'correctly'. At the very least our government should give us a vote to get our share of appeasements too. Oh and so we can still say no.
Sorry to be political here, but it's agood analogy. I don't believe this is the way a democracy should act and note I am not suggesting the ITTF are like my politicians.

I am however concerned about how the sports governing body have acted. People are elected and in charge and need to make decisions. I have no problem with that but a retrospective ban is one decision I feel that should have neccessitated a mandate from all current players to be passed. It wasn't to my knowledge and is now gone. I accept it, i don't like it but I do accept it.

My own feeling is that it was banned because it required a 'passive' technique, easy to learn, effective up to a certain level, but ultimately limiting your level and indeed own ability and development of shots. No top players used it so I wouldn't have thought the image of that type of game would affect it. Therefore I suspect people (beginners, new players who didn't understand the rubber and techniques to use against it were been put off because they were losing to people with no perceived skill as opposed to losing because they had no skill. I would understand those reasons (skill development and numbers) for banning the rubber. It's a business, not a sport any more, like so many other games and is ultimately about numbers. I would like table tennis to survive in some form.
This is off topic but I don't like 11 up. The better player wins less often, serves and luck are more important. Tv only shows it from 8-8 anyway insteasd of 16-16. badminton had it forced on them and have compromised getting the game back to a more 'fair' point total (They play to 21 like we used too). I think we should have fought harder. For me sport has always been about improving yourself and playing your best. I want the best player to win that's why I prefer 21up.


You make some very good and valid points there Anti. You're right, the National bodies didn't poll the players they are supposed to represent when voting on this, but neither do government's conduct referendum's on anything that isn't changing the constitution. So it is always the people who get "stuck" with the rules of governments just because they voted for them because they liked some of their policies, or the way they look, or whatever reason. Now I know we don't even vote for the members of our national bodies, but someone must I guess. Perhaps Adham can enlighten us on how these people, including himself, get into office?

And yes, I liked the 21up game also. The 11up game seems to be over almost as soon as it begins lol.


To have a Referendum on a particular issue is very rare in any country. Usually it is a fundamental issue that will affect the entire country. Even going to war is often NOT put to a referendum. In any case, it depends in which country you live. In the USA the players elect their national representatives directly using a voting mail ballot (this may change now). In most other countries there are several levels governing the sport. In Canada for example, we have the clubs, the regions, the the provinces and finally the national association. Each lebvel is elected by the level directly below.
In my case, first I must ne nominated by my own national association (Canada), then the election takes place at the ITTF's Annual General meeting (AGM) at which all member national associations (205) have one vote each. I was elected for 2-year terms in 1999, 2001 and 2003, then the system changed and I was elected for a 4-year term in 2005. The next election is in 2009 (4-year term).
In a poll done on an other Forum I received only 20% of the votes. 80% voted against me. I'm lucky that it does not count. I voted for myself, so I probably got less than 20%.

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008, 06:23 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
antipip wrote:
Speedplay: Thanks I prefer the way you put what I wanted to ask.
Kagin: Enjoyed reading your posts
Reb: Good question. I do think 21 is a fairer game, it allows for more momentum changes and different tactics. Though I have to say I prefer finishing at 10 in the evening than 1:30.

Kagin / Smartguy: Regarding Dampfungsfolie and rulings. Rules are difficult to write and fully understand when read. The definition or classsification can make a huge difference to the interpretation. If Damfungsfolie was classed as a glue sheet, it would seem to be o.k. If it were classified as an additive it probably wouldn't. Adham may know how this product is viewed by the ITTF, we don't know how it is viewed; at the moment. In the general section someone has quoted an e-mail from toni hold suggesting he had asked the ITTF questions on this product and had no response so went ahead. If this is the case it wouldn't seem to be in secret for this particular product.

I am not currently using this product, but if it was legal I would use it. I'm not using at the moment as you could have all your league results turned into losses which would be unfair on the rest of my team. I think players need to know if a product is legal or illegal. It should be clear and not allowed by some umpires / leagues and not others. I'd like a ruling on it, maybe adham can help the ITTF to publish a ruling (1 way or the other) as he can see on here how it affects players who are wanting to use legal equipment and are not wanting to break a rule.

I would also like to use the toni hold new 40 which is marketed as 0x but said by the manufacturer to have a thin sponge. The legality of this product, probably rests with the definition of a sponge (its chemical compilation. We question it on the forum is it legal, isn't it legal but won't know until they rule on it. If they have already done so adham may well know the outcome of the ruling. That is why I would ask.

Adham: I'd really appreciate hearing the ITTFs view on these 2 items. (toni hold new 40 and damfungsfoile). If you could get a response from them it would be great.


I really don't know anything about this PSA sheet. I first heard about it from Igor on the German Forum. If it meets all the specifications of the ITTF as is written in the Technical Leaflet, then it should be OK. If it doesn't then it's not OK. I can ask our equipment committee about it.

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008, 06:25 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
antipip wrote:
All glue sheets slow the blade down (I think I'm correct in that statement). However, this one is specifically designed for it. It may still meet the definition of a glue sheet. It also may not. This is all we're asking. I don't think anyone on this forum can speak for the ITTF, hopefully Adham can pass on the query and / or get an answer for us. I think we're just going in circles with our arguments.


I will find out about it. Could you give me the exact name, brand, model, etc. please?

_________________
Adham Sharara


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008, 06:25 
Offline
Darth Pips
Darth Pips
User avatar

Joined: 26 Jun 2007, 03:59
Posts: 4258
Location: Cudahy, WI, USA
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 23 times
Blade: Donic Defplay
FH: Xiom OmegaV Asia Max
BH: Spinlord DG 2 OX
I actually like the 11 point rule. It really forces you to focus harder, you can't give a point or two away and still hope to recover very often. I do think it gives the lower rated person a little more of a chance in an individual game, but in the long haul the better player will still figure the lower rated person out more often than not in win.

The only tweak that I'd propose, and like to get feedback on, is making the final game when it's tied at the end of a match to 21. For example, in a best of 5 scenario, the first four games go to 11, but the fifth goes to 21. My reasoning is that, I'll admit, luck does come into play more in 11 point games. If your opponent gets a couple of nets and edges in an earlier game, you still have time to recover. However, when the match is close and hard fought, and tied 2-2, it's a shame for a fifth and deciding game to be based on a lucky break or two. That's why I'd like to see the fifth (or seventh, in best of seven) go to a 21 point game. That way, a long, hard fought match isn't decided in the last game by a couple of breaks one way or the other, and it lengthens the drama of the match.

What do you guys think?

_________________
"Don't let a win get to your head or a loss to your heart."
USATT Rating: 1798
Blade: Donic Defplay Senso, FH: Xiom Omega V Asia Max Red BH: Spinlord Dornenglanz 2 OX Black


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008, 06:32 
Offline
Secret Agent Double OX
Secret Agent Double OX
User avatar

Joined: 05 Oct 2007, 06:49
Posts: 10535
Location: USA
Has thanked: 266 times
Been thanked: 344 times
Blade: Tibhar CO-S-3
FH: Dr. Neubauer Leopard
BH: D.TecS SPEZIAL OX
adham wrote:
I will find out about it. Could you give me the exact name, brand, model, etc. please?

Company: Toni Hold
Product: Dampfungsfolie
http://tonihold.com/html/products.html (bottom of the page)

_________________



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

Coach Li: Kill the game against long pimps! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAHNaiIhnWM


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008, 18:41 
Offline
OOAK Super User
OOAK Super User
User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2008, 21:06
Posts: 1213
Location: England
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
Adham: We are not allowed to alter rubbers post factory. Yet sponge can be bought seperately. Are we able to put this sponge on? If would seem odd to be allowed to buy sponge but unable to use it. Do you know what the situation is here?

MNNB has given details of the 'glue sheet'. Thanks for looking into it.

I would be interestd to know about the Toni Hold new 40 anti topsin too with it's 0x 'sponge' too. It's the same company. This is a rubber I could play with, but I don't wish to use a reversed rubber which may not be classified as having a sponge). (http://www.tonihold.com/html/products.html ANTI TOP SPIN NEW 40)
I need to change my rubbers and want to change to stuff which I know is legal to use. I don't want to have to go through another rubber trial period again.

I liked your answer on technique and base levels. I do enjoy reading your views. People may choose to base their game on other shots than a loop. For me push, chop, float, roll, flick and kill will do. I feel it is good that you have played to the standard you have, it can only enhance the credibility of your views and must help with the practicality of decisions you and the ITTF have to make. I still disagree with a retrospective ban on principle.

I think it's a little unfair to suggest a game in Tennis is 4 points. To win a match in tennis (mens 5 set match) the minimum point requirement is 72 (a 3 set match would be 48 ). This is equivalent winning to the winning of a table tennis set. At local league I need 33 points. I used to need 42.

My point was that: Over a longer event the better player will win more often and sport should be about finding the best player. Would Tiger dominate golf as much if majors were over 1 hole not 72. Similarly after 18 holes he would be unlikely to be as dominant.
I have no wish to argue about going back to 21 up. I do think 15 may have been a better compromise if it absolutely had to be reduced, but that horse appears to have bolted. Plus it is nice to finish in time for a pint.

Thanks for your replies, it is good of you to take the time and I do enjoy reading your views on the game.

_________________
Equipment Review Index
Joola Turbo: FH: Joola Peking (2mm) , BH: Joola Peking (2mm)
Another one bites the dust.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Dec 2008, 23:59 
Offline
King of Ping!

Joined: 05 Nov 2008, 00:17
Posts: 487
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times
antipip wrote:
Adham: We are not allowed to alter rubbers post factory. Yet sponge can be bought seperately. Are we able to put this sponge on? If would seem odd to be allowed to buy sponge but unable to use it. Do you know what the situation is here?

MNNB has given details of the 'glue sheet'. Thanks for looking into it.

I would be interestd to know about the Toni Hold new 40 anti topsin too with it's 0x 'sponge' too. It's the same company. This is a rubber I could play with, but I don't wish to use a reversed rubber which may not be classified as having a sponge). (http://www.tonihold.com/html/products.html ANTI TOP SPIN NEW 40)
I need to change my rubbers and want to change to stuff which I know is legal to use. I don't want to have to go through another rubber trial period again.

I liked your answer on technique and base levels. I do enjoy reading your views. People may choose to base their game on other shots than a loop. For me push, chop, float, roll, flick and kill will do. I feel it is good that you have played to the standard you have, it can only enhance the credibility of your views and must help with the practicality of decisions you and the ITTF have to make. I still disagree with a retrospective ban on principle.

I think it's a little unfair to suggest a game in Tennis is 4 points. To win a match in tennis (mens 5 set match) the minimum point requirement is 72 (a 3 set match would be 48 ). This is equivalent winning to the winning of a table tennis set. At local league I need 33 points. I used to need 42.

My point was that: Over a longer event the better player will win more often and sport should be about finding the best player. Would Tiger dominate golf as much if majors were over 1 hole not 72. Similarly after 18 holes he would be unlikely to be as dominant.
I have no wish to argue about going back to 21 up. I do think 15 may have been a better compromise if it absolutely had to be reduced, but that horse appears to have bolted. Plus it is nice to finish in time for a pint.

Thanks for your replies, it is good of you to take the time and I do enjoy reading your views on the game.


I hope all you guys take at least a break from the Forum during the holidays, or does it become more active?

To be very honest, I am not an expert on equipment. You are now asking me really very specific equipment questions. The only advice I could give is as follows:
- if the racket covering is authorized by the ITTF appearing on the list of authorized racket coverings, then you can use it.
- if you procure the sponge alone, and then add a rubber on top that is authorized and you affix the 2 together, as long as there are no VOCs, as long as nothing within the sponge will interact with the rubber and alter its characteristics as authorized, then it's OK.
- I really do not know anything about the specific brand you mentioned, just follow the above two points.

Yes, I will look into this issue of the glue sheet. What may make it illegal would be the thickness, but I will find out from our experts.

I also disagree with retroactive implementation of rules, but how is the minimum friction level rule applied retroactively? You mean because some players were using this type of equipment already? But the rule was passed in 2006 and implemented more than a year later with testing of rubbers, so in fact there was much advance notice. How else would you implement this rule?

Maybe you missed my point about Tennis. I was not referring to the length of the match or the total points to be played. I was making reference to a sport that got it right. They have many "short" games. This adds to the excitment. Every Games is a compact 4 point Game. It would even be more fair if they alternated service, as service is very dominant in tennis and to win a match the objective is to hold your own serve and to break the opponent's serve. My point is that by reducing the number of points, and increasing the number of games, you increase the number of "crucial" parts of the match, which are the Game endings. In a fully played 3 out of 5 before, we had 5 game endings, in a current 4 out of 7, we have 7 game ending. It's better, more exciting. Personally, the 11-point game is not in favour of my style (spin variations, tactical development, etc.), but I love it as a spectator, and today I would say that "most" of the players at all levels also like it. Kids like it for obvious reasons (fast, impatient, exciting, etc.), but also it gives older players, in my opinion, a better chance to play more years as the overall match is shorter. In a 3/5 we needed 63 points to win, in a new 4/7 we need 44 points. In fact, it was designed to be about two-thirds of the original (one-third shorter). We had proposals and tests for 7 points games, 9, 11, 13 and 15. The majority of the players tested and surveyed proposed 11 points. Also the AGM chose 11 points (this was proposed by the ITTF's Atheltes Commission). Also 11 points has a tradition in schools and many already played at the recreational level to 11. In any case, I believe it is here to stay, and we can chalk 21 points to history.

Have a good time during the holidays, but don't use the saved time from shorter matches to overload on the extra pints, take it easy.

_________________
Adham Sharara


Last edited by adham on 25 Dec 2008, 02:28, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 458 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31  Next


Don't want to see this advertisement? Become a member and login, and you'll never see an ad again!



All times are UTC + 9:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Copyright 2012 OOAK Table Tennis Forum. The information on this site cannot be reused without written permission.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




Don't forget to 'LIKE' our forum on Facebook if you enjoy the content: