OOAK Table Tennis Forum

I can play with 1.8mm rubber without any real effect because I use rock hard sponge. It'll ruin sale of any rubber that's worth anything and all the players that are worth watching, the best thing about table tennis from a spectators point of view is long range rallies and big amounts of sidespin, anyone that actively tries to reduce that has no clue and not even worth your 10 seconds of lifespan to read about. This is typical ITTF stupidity. I have a tip for Adham, if he's that desperate for fame why doesn't he get a job with FIFA, it would suit him perfectly .


There's nothing inherently wrong with table tennis, it's been massively popular before without any advertising or efforts. I'd put to you that it would be more popular than it is today if the ITTF just didn't exist. They have been counter productive in the most disturbing amount these last 20 years.

_________________
Donic defplay senso
Haifu whale soft (grips-euro)
Nittaku pimplemini 1.0mm

I hear a lot of 'remove the inverted rubber' talk as well in regards to making the game more spectator friendly. Frankly I think that this in itself is regressive not progressive, same as reducing the thickness of the sponge. I think that it would remove some of the spectator appeal that TT has at the moment and why people play in the first place.

In a world which loves speed, I don't think people will watch a progressively slower game as it removes some of the awe that the speed generates. I also think that it would hurt existing players more then new players and it would create a whole new arms race between equipment manufactures (but both those points being superfluous to the OP). Cricket was used as a good example of a sport reinventing itself for the market, but they increased the pace and intensity of the game not reduced it, forcing more aggressive play making the game more watchable for the average viewer. Sure a cricket fan will enjoy the 5 day test as they understand the nuances of the game, but a slap happy backyarder will watch more one-day and 20-20 matches for the bigger hitting and faster paced game.

This kind of happened with TT going from 21 point sets to 11. It forces a more aggressive style of play as you have less margin for error (less points buffer to make a comeback) and need to win the point/set more decisively. Which is why I personally think defenders have been pushed out of the top rankings.

To change the spectator appeal I think first, you simply have to get more outlets for the sport. More coverage in itself will generate more interest as more people are exposed to the game. I think less focus on changing the rules and more focus on getting exposure for the game is what the ITTF should be mainlining. Change the rules over and over, still wont make a difference if people don't have decent access to watch the game as the changes are still in the darkness of a non-broadcast sport.

_________________
CORNILLEAU Hugo Calderano FOCO OFF+
FH: ANDRO Hexer Powergrip 2.1
BH: ANDRO Hexer Powergrip 2.1

Well, tennis put the brakes on double-strung rackets. Some tennis greats today lament that tennis is allowing too much equipment influence on the game at the pro level. Baseball won't allow aluminum bats. Football (NFL) fiddles with the rules and interpretation every year. It is important to manage how your sport evolves. And it is also possible to make mistakes while doing so.

As I've said before, the rule change in 1959 seemed like a decent (and much needed) compromise to me. The bigger problem was the evolution of rubbers and speed gluing that followed - largely unchecked. Also, IMO, the game was bound to change from the style used by the classic players in the 40s and 50s. Japan's Ogimura was one of the first indications of that. IMO, we were never going to see the classic game again.

My comments had nothing to do with going back to Viktor Barna. Mostly my comments made the point that spectator appeal is less important than achieving broad based organized participation. And the game as it sits today has pitifully low levels of such organized participation. We have maybe 16,000 active club/tournament players in a country of 300 million. But we have around 20 million casual players - who just happen to be using equipment with much more modest spin capabilities. The simple fact is that the modern super-high-spin game has not been successful in the U.S. or Australia. Is only marginally successful in Europe. It has been fairly successful in Japan (who happen to embrace "big ball" play and have supported variations of the game from the beginning). And was highly successful in China - surely in part due to strong government promotion. And in China, alas, "western" sports seem to be capturing the imaginations of the youth. Will table tennis get left behind?

So the notion of dialing back rubber thickness has nothing to do with the classic game for me. It has everything to do with trying to look around and see what is actually happening. And like it or not, high-spin table tennis is getting its butt whipped by just about every other sport on the planet.

Listen. I get it. I understand that most or many current table tennis aficionados and enthusiasts like table tennis just the way it is. Just don't kid yourselves that this current incarnation isn't an impediment to making the sport more popular. It makes it more difficult to build that large participatory base. And that's why I'd go along with the idea of rackets with reduced ability to spin the ball.

_________________
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist & Dr. Evil

Great. Let's increase the allowed rubber thickness to 8mm and reduce the ball to 30mm in diameter. If more is better, then too much should be just right.



Yeah. Cricket is a pretty poor analogy. Of course shorter matches were a good idea for increasing viewership. Like you said, five days for a match!?!? Successful broadcast sports tells us that five days is far from an ideal match length. You should be shooting for something between one and three hours for the ideal.



And this hasn't helped much has it?



You've got the cart before the horse. Who wants to pay to broadcast a sport when there is no large group of people you can point to as being potential avid viewers? The answer, of course, is "nobody." It isn't exposure that primarily drives participation. It is almost universal (there are a few exceptions, but there's little reason to think that TT has the characteristics that would make it an exception) that participation creates the opportunity for exposure - which can then help to drive greater participation.

You are right that rules changes won't matter. You need to build the base of participants first and foremost. If rules changes help with that, then they can be useful. If not, then no need to bother IMO. Golf is slow and boring from the standpoint of a sporting spectacle. What's important in golf is where a ball stops rolling and bouncing after being hit. Yet golf has an entire TV channel dedicated to it in the U.S. and its stars are millionaires many times over. Bowling is a boring spectacle from the standpoint of the action. There's only so many ways to throw a strike after all - and picking up a difficult split is exciting only because it is so rare. But it gets real TV time in the U.S. and the prize money is far higher than anything table tennis gets. What explains this? Both have bases of organized or related participation that create a natural potential for a viewing audience.

_________________
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist & Dr. Evil

Even though I enjoy using hardhat rubber on one side if I had to use it on both sides and not be able to loop I couldn't see myself playing TT. For me growing up in the 70s the whole point of table tennis was learning how to do this mystical new loop stroke that only very few people playing used. Back then hard bat players were still sprinkled around in clubs but the majority were classic defenders.

With cricket I much prefer watching a test match, sometimes I watch a one day match but never 20-20. There's something missing with speed cricket, its not supposed to be a speedy game. It needs time to build up before a wicket falls, like a long seige of a castle. I understand a lot of people don't deal with waiting these days but for me its OK. I'm used to waiting 15 years for a tree I planted to mature so 5 days is nothing.

_________________
Donic defplay senso
Haifu whale soft (grips-euro)
Nittaku pimplemini 1.0mm

Well, I am not against hardbat, in fact, I like it quite a bit when I practiced with Raymond Wang almost nightly at LATTA. But I simply do not see the current ITTF equipment rules as an impediment to popularize the sport, as opposed to more hardbat-like equipment rules. Extreme spin produces extreme arcs for attackers, and crazy breaks after landing on the opponent's side of the table. To many current players that's the main appeal of the modern game. I am not a looper anymore (unlike in my teens), but I still like playing against extreme spin provided that I am still allowed to use LPs and anti that can still make my game competitive against these players. Dare I say I find it even more fun playing against heavy loopers than pips-out attackers.

I know table tennis could become more popular in the U.S. than it is now, that much more work could be done. However, correlation does not imply causation when it comes to current equipment and the sport's popularity. I am simply not convinced by any stretch of imagination that by outlawing (or severely handicapping) this brand of table tennis, there will be more than enough hardbatters and pips-out players to take over their place, increase our USATT membership base and hold more successful tournaments than the current ITTF and national associations can. Hardbat was popular in its day, I understand, but there's simply no proof that non-table tennis players today prefer this type of game over looping with something like Tenergy. In fact I've found it to be the opposite at our clubs in SoCal when complete newbies and their kids come for beginner's lessons. They want the spinniest and bounciest equipment they could buy.

Five, six years ago I used to think along the same lines as you, that many curious newbies are turned off by extreme spin of the game they encountered at their first "serious" club outting and never to return, and that we were wasting countless opportunities to popularize the sport because of it. I no longer feel the same, because I have realized most of these newbies never intended to take this sport seriously in the first place, and they naively thought whatever they learned in their garage/basement was more than enough to kick ass in "real" clubs, or become U.S. champion in short order. Some of them have told me as much before they left in utter disappointment. Their attitude was completely wrong to begin with, as table tennis is no longer just a parlor game. These people were not and never will be the future backbone of U.S. table tennis, no matter what equipment changes we will implement. My view today is to blame the players and not the game.

I think that we all have pretty valid points and that's what is making the discussion so varied. I wasn't suggesting 8mm rubber limits just that going backwards in thickness isn't the solution in my opinion.

I think that the rules as they are now are ok. 11 point sets haven't helped the game increase in numbers but I don't think that the changes to the rules are the driving factor for that. What I think was attempted is to have more intensity in the sets, which inadvertently pushed defending out a little more in high level play.

More then likely there is a mix of issues that would need to be addressed. Golf has lots of players as its positioned itself as a premiere sport. The prestige it has pulls players in. Similar to other popular and large player base games they have generated this added value to their code, the prestige of playing that sport over a garage game. Table tennis is by most people seen as a garage game the prestige is not there so people are not drawn to it for the same reasons. Prestige in western countries is not there for tt and that more then rules and equipment changes is what I see as the determining factor.

_________________
CORNILLEAU Hugo Calderano FOCO OFF+
FH: ANDRO Hexer Powergrip 2.1
BH: ANDRO Hexer Powergrip 2.1

People think too lightly of table tennis, thinking it's just a "garage" sport or some social activity.

Aggressive rallies, faster equipment, more spin and definitely more exposure (media coverage, promotion, etc.) is what's needed to advance the sport. It evolved from hardbat to inverted, so why go back? Simply because newbs can't handle spin? Like RR said, those who play like that aren't going to be the future of the sport, so why entrust it to them?

Show the new players what they could be and help them achieve it, that way we get more players and we still have fun.


On a personal note, I absolutely hate the "tock" sound of hardbats. Plus no disrespect but simply whacking a ball back and forth ain't really a sport, doesn't involve a lot of technical skill now does it?

_________________
Primary:
Xiom Stradivarius
Xiom Vega China [Forehand]
Yasaka Mark V [Backhand]

Secondary:
Globe 583 "Whirlwind"
This Space For Rent [Forehand]
Yasaka Mark V [Backhand]

I find it interesting how people keep referring to hardbat as a counterpoint to what I've said when that was not the point I made. What I suggested was a change to pips out with a 3.5mm max thickness. That is a LONG way away from hardbat. The extreme arcs and crazy breaks sure do appeal to many current players. But those numbers are way to small. The right question is, "what version of the game would appeal to around 1 million players?"

I was going over some Japanese table tennis technical paper a while back and in their tests they had a short pips player who was generating as much spin as the average inverted player. 3.5mm short pips isn't really even close to being like hardbat. I suppose mandating the same top sheet on both sides is sorta hardbat like.



I agree. I base my opinion on how I see people reacting to the sport, not on the fact that we have less than 20,000 regular club/tournament players in the U.S.



Sure. And that's not my point. My point was that if you are going to change the thickness from 4mm to 3.5mm with the aim of increasing the appeal of the sport, that you are kidding yourself. An equipment change that has that effect would have to be more radical. And frankly, I think trying to "fix" table tennis by changing the equipment is a fools errand. At best that can only be a small part of a much bigger effort - and that bigger effort should be one of growing the playing base.



Like I said, I'm not here advocating going back to hardbat. I agree that there is no proof. That's why I like to see the sandpaper and hardbat events and associations working in parallel with the modern game and not instead of it. There's a lot that we don't know. So lets run different versions of the game and see what happens. Let's experiment and see if we can learn something. There's no need to fiddle with the modern game at this point. But if you are going to fiddle, don't kid yourself that minor tweaks will make a worthwhile difference. That's the lunacy of the 40mm ball and now the poly ball. And it would be the lunacy of going to 3.5mm max thickness as well.

And yes, the sport is populated mostly by guys and the "guy" mentality says that "better and faster equals better" - and that is reinforced by what the pros use. I see 1300 level players with Tenergy and carbon fiber blades all the time. And they play a weaker game because of it. In large part, they see themselves as imitating the pros. If the pros used slower gear, they would likely imitate that as well. And they'd probably play a better game.

But the fact remains that very few people in total are attracted to learning the sport. And that leaves the question of whether or not the high spin equipment creates a greater barrier to entry or not. I think that the typical player has a real problem with trying to look at the game through the eyes of an outsider. I think far too many see what they like and figure that if it thrills them then it should thrill millions others as well. Well that ain't necessarily so. Just about every non table tennis person I know finds table tennis intolerable to watch. Heck, even table tennis players can't be bothered to watch full matches in real time. Most "matches" online (not posted by the ITTF) seem to be edited versions with all the boring points omitted. I've seen players comment on how great some match was. But when I go to see the match they referred to I only got to see around half the points. Many supposedly insignificant points were edited out. The "match" was over in about ten minutes. Sorry. That wasn't watching a table tennis match.

If table tennis is ever going to offer professional players a chance at a decent career and income, a larger participatory base needs to be created. I think it is that simple. Can you do that given the modern game? Probably. The best test cases we have would be Asian countries that are not China as well as Europe. So surely, given the right initiatives we should be able to eventually duplicate those kinds of results in this country without fiddling with equipment. And while that would be a HUGE improvement over our current situation, it is hardly what I'd consider a great success compared to other sports. The total prize money for the biggest table tennis tournament isn't even close to $1M. Serena Williams won $3.6M for winning the U.S. Open ($2.6M + $1M Bonus). If you take the popularity of table tennis in China off the table (because it was largely created by the Chinese government and that can't realistically be duplicated anywhere in the world right now) - table tennis isn't very successful at all. I think it is reasonable to consider that the equipment evolution may be part of the reason for the sport's failure to become mainstream - except at the parlor game level - where it is a grand success.

_________________
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist & Dr. Evil

Face it. Half the tournament players in the U.S. can't really handle spin. Heck, even though I play in the top 15 percentile of the sport in the U.S. with a hardbat, I think my ability to "handle spin" is severly limited compared to the top 5 percentile. I just played in our singles league last night and got pop-ups off the table by slow looping and serving long topspin serves ... with a hardbat.



Yep. That's one reason that I play with hardbat. It demonstrates that you really don't need $60 rubbers and carbon fiber blades to play a fast and aggressive game of table tennis.



I dunno. Tennis seems to be doing well. Aren't they just whacking the ball back and forth? Don't they just kick the ball around in soccer (football).

What I see with most club level players is just what you described - a lack of technical prowess. Round Robin mentioned Raymond Wang. I've never seen him play hardbat but I've heard different people describe it. His skills would put me to shame. Lots of technical prowess there. No disrespect, but I don't think you know much about hardbat.

_________________
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist & Dr. Evil

I think it's unfortunate that table tennis is fairly successful at the parlor game (and garage/basement) level in this country. I really do. I used to think it's a blessing but now I think it's a terrible misfortune, and it's the main reason no one takes it seriously except immigrants. The first thing the manufacturers and suppliers ought to do is to get rid of beer pong equipment and hardbat rubbers (sorry Jay) because they screw up the sport's perception in this country. ITTF should declare hardbat rubbers illegal and educate the U.S. manufacturers to change their products to match those used by the majority of players around the world, which is the inverted rubber. The vast majority of table tennis players around the world do not use hardbat or sandpaper (except the Philippines, but even over there the Lihadores are not as numerous as Dr. Scott Gordon would like you to believe, as I have numerous relatives who are living there. No one knows the sandpaper version of table tennis). It cheapens the sport and reinforces the stereotype that table tennis is still a bar game. Compared to many other Olympic sports, table tennis' popularity is head-and-shoulders above many of them in most parts of the world. The main difference between these countries and the U.S. is the perception of the sport. Even in Central and South America table tennis is taken much more seriously than in the U.S., and I am convinced (now more firmly than ever) the reason table tennis is cursed in this country is because it is still heavily marketed as a nob and drunk's game that should be played with a $2 hardbat paddle and beer cups from Wal-Mart. Spin is not the problem, nor is combo bat that creates unnecessary confusion (as you like to mention). Combo bats are standard equipment for every single one of the world-class choppers and I don't see any offensive pro-players or world-class coaches complain against these combo bats, except you, so I find it very perplexing. Stop cheapening the sport with "alternative" versions of the sport and accept the way it is played at the Olympic level.

There's simply no way for USATT and other full-time clubs in the U.S. to constantly fight against huge retailers like Wal-Mart that keep reinforcing the notion that table tennis is for frat boys and drunkards to be played with absolutely trashy equipments and a rowdy attitude. We can't win. On the other hand, the solution is not to embrace these nobs and numb down the sport to accommodate them either. By drastically limiting spin production of modern equipment, it's no longer table tennis the modern Olympic sport. Also, being an Olympic sport should mean something to those who constantly promote alternative table tennis tournaments exclusively for hardbat and sandpaper. I don't agree with these promoters. The likes of Berndt Mann constantly belittles modern table tennis in a world-wide forum further reinforces my belief that these "classic" events do more harm to this sport's image than they realize. It's completely disrespectful to the sport. It's very obvious to me that these pro-hardbat and pro-sandpaper people don't care about modern table tennis at all and would like to "shutdown" the current version of table tennis if they could. As such, they have essentially declared themselves as adversaries of Olympic table tennis and it's really a sad thing to see. But hey, we live in a free world. To each his own.

The truth is table tennis may never be popular in the U.S., but I am fairly confident it will go on in the rest of the world fairly successfully, be played at the highest level professionally, and enjoyed by many students in most schools as a varsity sport for the next 100 years. Even in a soccer-mad country with only 42 million inhabitants like Argentina, there's a table tennis team in every major sports club in the city. In Argentina, most soccer clubs like Boca and River accept members to use their gyms for a monthly fee, and the clubs provide facilities for most sports for these members to enjoy. Table tennis is prominently featured as one of them. Just imagine you could be a member of the Phoenix Suns, use their gyms regularly, and you will also find a competition-level table tennis facility, and yearly table tennis team trials to compete against the Lakers and other professional teams. Bottom line, it's the matter of respect for the sport the way it is.

Back to the original topic... Yes, I agree with you, reducing max thickness to 3.5mm isn't going to change the game much and won't make any meaningful difference. It will reduce spin and speed just a little. But I do not agree that reducing spin production by a meaningful margin is needed to make the game more popular.

Only using the US as your basis ain't really fair, no? The way I see it, those who aren't able to handle spin aren't putting enough effort to actually learn the game, for one, the spin factor is what puts "table tennis" in table tennis. I've been coaching a few grade schoolers (10-12 yrs) for a few weeks now, they can't handle a lot of spin just yet, but they're getting there. Right now we're on the subject of looping and topspins, boy you can't beat their delight when they hit a good topspin shot.

Actually, you don't need $60 rubbers and $100 carbon fiber blades. People prefer those because they need them to advance their playing. A recreational player could get by with say a $15-$20 bat no problem.

I read somewhere that tennis uses the concept of spin as well, not just simply hitting a ball back and forth. As for the soccer (football) thing, I don't know if you've watched Cristiano Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Lionel Messi or Frank Lampard play, watch them and you'll see soccer is more than just kicking a ball around.

I don't know alot about hardbat, that's for sure but from what I've seen, it's definitely the garage sport that people associate with table tennis. I've wowed and impressed so many people just by showing them my loops and topspins after telling them I play table tennis and I wonder why is that?



It is true that table tennis needs to grow in participation and adoption but outlawing the current for (as RR said) would only be hurting the sport. If you think the problem is with the difficulty of the sport as it is now, that potential players are being driven away by the steep learning curve of the modern game; then the problem isn't with the game or how it's played, it's with the people who want to "play" it. If they can't find the willingness and perseverance to learn about the spin factor in table tennis, then they shouldn't be playing at all.

@topic
I'm having fairly mixed feelings about the reduction. I primarily play with a lot of speed and spin so it could impact me greater than most.

_________________
Primary:
Xiom Stradivarius
Xiom Vega China [Forehand]
Yasaka Mark V [Backhand]

Secondary:
Globe 583 "Whirlwind"
This Space For Rent [Forehand]
Yasaka Mark V [Backhand]

vangeodee, I don't think wturber is suggesting we go back to all hardbat.

He's right; 3.5 mm inverted vs hardbat = gigantic difference. Now if they kept making the limit smaller and smaller, that'd be something else.

Oh and good hardbat play is pretty awesome to watch. Very different, but cool. It's a lot more than hitting a ball around.

And on the topic of reducing the thickness....it MIGHT give the attacker's equipment a little downgrade, leveling the field a little. MIGHT.

It could cause a surgance of new "4mm effect" rubbers. Sound familiar?

Another point: Probably only 5% or so of players actually benefit from 4mm rubber. Most player would benefit from more control. Haha it could force some players to have more suitable equipment!

_________________
Happy Holidays 'round the world!

I just don't think the problems we have as a "spectator sport" have anything to do with the equipment we are using. The case to suggest this is far from convincing (at least to me). Correlation is not causation. The modern sport puts a premium on athleticism and I for one would prefer to keep it that way. Athleticism is increased when the sport forces people to play farther off the table. Having said that, if they wanted reduce the thickness limit by 0.5 mm, it would not make that huge a difference. But I don't see the point of it. They tinker and tinker and tinker with the rules. Maybe this one change will make us like the NBA or the EPL or the Bundesliga. No? Well maybe THIS rule change will do it. Or the next one. Or the one after that, for sure, that's the ticket. Maybe we will have 7-point games next? It is madness.

Some sports have had radical changes in equipment (tennis) or major rules changes (volleyball) but no real change in popularity. Some have been ridiculously conservative and have lost popularity (baseball). The thing is, in our society, there are millions of things competing for our attention.

_________________
Butterfly Viscaria Black tag
2.2 mm Nexy Karis M on FH and BH

My first response to a reduction of total thickness to 3.5 would be...

CRACK KILLS! ... but everyone has pretty much said that.

My next attitude would be that with 1.8, the spin would be severely reduced. Of course spin is what allows players to hit hard and keep it on the table. Without much spin, we would be seeing players play closer to the table and hit flatter. The smash from close to table would be the kingpin shot in this scenario. That would make playing tactics more and more resemble the tactics of SP hitters.

Not everyone said that except RR.

I certainly would NOT like having to play with 1.8 sponge, that is not enough sponge to do what I want for sure, which is to SPIN the ball heavy and still have the abilty to powerloop heavy, 1.8 sponge just doesn't cut the mustard.

_________________
Goof-off chopping bat
Gambler All Rosewood
Aurus Soft / Gambler GXL .6 sponge

Status - Out of Business Janitor/Babysitter