OOAK Table Tennis Forum

My problem is not being able to describe the differences between blades and rubbers except in very general terms. I marvel about some of the stuff I read on ttdb, especially when I try out the same stuff and it seems the same as other stuff.

Iskandar

I think that's because most of the stuff of ttdb could be produced by a random rubber review generator in a couple of dozen lines of code.

Seriously - it's the product of a combination of fantasy and mass hysteria. Each successive review and set of comments providing the breeding ground for the next plague.

You describe differences in general terms because that makes sense and is a fair representation of what differences there were, if any.

Sometimes the differences are very subtle. Add in cognitive biases and the likelihood that two rubbers of similar design goals can be meaningfully compared at the level of detail found on ttdb is frankly laughable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
Yasaka Sweden Classic | 802 OX | C8 OX
Check out my blog - LordCope's Latest Learning Log - 10+ years of accumulate mistakes!

I don't think the stuff of ttdb are produced by computer codes, otherwise it would be updated by the minute, which it is not.
But there is a case for the detail found on them being laughable - rating them that 'accurately' even to a single decimal point, like speeds of 9.8 vs 9.7. Actually it does wrongly convey the impression that a blade with speed rated at 9.8 is faster than another with 9.7 The ratings are based solely on players opinions without any solid scientific evidence.
Without technical data, players can only describe the characteristics in general terms. So OFF, All + etc … are good enough. Manufacturers on the other hand should describe their equipment with much more accurate detail.
Yes, players like me were sucked in by the ttdb hype initially. However I now take them in general terms and as a starting basis for evaluation before approaching trusted players for their opinions. That's why I approached Ooak Forum.

My experience, as a person who had spent literally thousands of pounds on rubbers and blades, is that between equipment broadly designed to do the same thing, the differences are very marginal, such that your brain adapts very quickly and on average a change will make almost no difference to your performance.

Bigger changes, like from inverted to pimple, very thick to very thin, etc... These have marked differences but even then you will be up to usual level in a few hours.

I don't include material for specialist purposes. My fh loop with inverted is never going to quickly adjust to ox long pimples.

But even between sp and slow thin inverted and then slow thin inverted to fast thick inverted, as Ive done in the last week, really hadn't required a huge adjustment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
Yasaka Sweden Classic | 802 OX | C8 OX
Check out my blog - LordCope's Latest Learning Log - 10+ years of accumulate mistakes!

Are we still on topic with ttdb?

To be honest, I trust the user-experiences on ttdb more than the descriptions on the packages or within most shops from dealers.
Furthermore, you can rate a review accurate if you think it fits the product and you're free to give a rating on your own.

And yes, usually it's always a good idea to do a crosscheck with several sources available.

And also yes, whether a rating is 8.7 or 9.1 is quite irrelevant. What I do like is that there's more specific information like hardness/stiffness on blades or weight and softness on rubbers and also the reviews itself. Does it always fit? No. Will you experience the same with a rubber or blade than some of the reviewers have had? Certainly not, especially not for 100%. Does it help when users report a delamination within 1 month or other problems with durability? I guess it does.

_________________
Red is blogging here >> http://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=30522

I do agree that the blurbs on the back of rubber packages don't really shed much light ( they are a constant source of amusement for me), and I suspect they're like that deliberately, for a reason. On the other hand, the numbers provided by manufacturers should be quite indicative of rubber and blade properties for the sake of comparison, since the manufacturers have the means to measure them back to back. Unfortunately these numbers only apply to stuff from one given manufacturer. I'm inclined also to believe ratings given by large retailers, who do test stuff back to back. Crowd-sourced ratings from the likes of ttdb CAN work, if there really is a crowd, in other words, a lot of people reviewing many sheets and blades. So if you are comparing, say, Tenergy 05 and, say, one of the popular Evolutions, you should be able to believe the numbers because 200+ people have reviewed each of them, and a sizable number of people have actually tried both. But for a lot of rubbers, there have been only two or three reviews. You COULD still compare such rubbers if they have been reviewed by one trusted person who has reviewed a lot of sheets I suppose. I actually think the decimal place is useful because it lets you rate similar stuff against other similar stuff. Say you rate Sriver as 7.0 and Tenergy 05 as 9.5 (must leave SOME space at the top...) where will you fit all the other Tenergies and Tensors if you compare them back to back?

What is sorely lacking is actual, agreed-upon quantitative testing protocols that can be carried out by any lab with the equipment and the results published. I'm sure Butterfly has the means, so does ESN, but vendors don't.

What I do have a problem with is the opinions I often come across - this (Chinese, max sponge) rubber is great for mid- distance looping but terrible for blocking, while that (Chinese, max sponge) rubber is great for blocking but terrible for mid-distance looping, when in actual fact they're both good at both, and one is just marginally faster than the other. If you mount them on the same blade you can barely tell them apart. This is, I think, the case for the vast majority of Chinese rubber - the differences exist but they are subtle rather than glaring and in most cases it doesn't matter what you use as long as you stick to it.

Iskandar

What a 'review' this has turned out to be.
Glad all of us agreed on how to interpret reviews with the right perspective. If only there are more equipment reviews then this would provide much more evaluation material for our common good.

Back to the topic.

I played the Cornilleau Soft Carbon. It is indeed lightweight. But that the only thing that is valid from the description. It neither played OFF, nor has been controlled. The soft carbon is misleading, as the blade is very stiff and has a very solid surface. The touch is not soft at all. For looping not the best blade. I'm not sure who would actually benefit from this blade. For blocking it gives not enough feedback.

I personally didn't like the grip, which is small and very flat kind of rectangular.

The question is, what you are looking for, besides weight. How stiff should the blade be? How much feedback?
If you can live without carbon, you might try a Yasaka MA Lin Extra Offensive. An inexpensive, lightweight Off blade with excellent quality.

Or on the more expensive side. I recommend my current blade, the Xiom Vega Tour. I posted a longer review here in the blades forum.

Thanks vossi39.
I have decided to purchase the cornilleau soft carbon but didn't went ahead because the Aussie supplier had no stock. Fortunate? With your review I have decided against it now.

Yes, I need a carbon blade due mainly to speed and light-weight.
1) My all wood W6, and Galaxy has a couple more budget wooden blades, such as the N9, which are good enough. Like I said, it loops, blocks, chops, spins very well with great control for the close game. I actually felt that I have improved a lot. In fact lots of wooded blades has more power (and loops well) also than my W6 - but they are all far heavier - between 85g to 95g
2) I cannot improve my physical strength now. At 69, its more likely to go downwards with no chance of upwards. That's why I need to try out light-weight with more power. I hope carbon blades is the answer.
And all this, just for the thrill of executing some nice strokes and enjoyment at my highest level of this great game.

If you can find one of the older N11 blades (as opposed to the N11s), those weigh 80 grams and are faster than a W6. The first M8 I got weighed around 72 grams and is faster than a W6.

Iskandar