OOAK Table Tennis Forum

The ball was very hard (dare I say, for the sport's veterans, "Barna hard", a ball I remember very well and with much affection).

The major variation between the two balls was in ball spin. Using my existing technique (both offensive technique and control technique) and my existing high quality offensive-oriented rubber, the non-celluloid ball had decidedly less spin. My playing partner confirmed this conclusion from a number of playing experiments we performed.

As a rough approximation, I estimated my forehand "loop" had 30% less spin. This difference was evident in the effectiveness of my partner's play, as he was highly proficient in responding to my non-celluloid ball offensive shots and discernibly less so with the celluloid ball. Also, when controlling against the ball ("pushing"), the non-celluloid ball had much less spin, often nospin (employing a technique that produces quality spin with a celluloid ball). With the non-celluloid ball, using my current technique and rubber, I was unable to "loop drive" the ball successfully, as the ball flew off the end of the table by a considerable distance, indicating my ball speed was maintained but not my ball spin, as the reliance on a precise speed/spin ratio is critical at these racket speeds. Not enough time was available for me to attempt to alter my loop drive technique to accommodate the new ball.

[Given that these observations have validity] some interesting thoughts come to mind. Why would there be less spin, given the same player behavior and rubber? One contributing factor may be that the ball is bigger in circumference, thus the turning object is spinning less. Another may be the relative lack of compression of the ball due to its hardness is reducing the rubber/sponge dwell time, resulting in less effect.

[Given that these observations hold for the implemented non-celluloid ball], some very important consequences would ensue in the sport. In effect, the current table tennis rubber/sponge world is celluloid-adapted. A new generation of equipment would arise seeking to produce the playing characteristics desired with the new non-celluloid ball. Secondly, if the ball spin quantities are permanently reduced to the degree represented here, the at-the-table short pips attackers will be back, for it was the great spin enhancement that drove them from the game. Lastly, the defensive capabilities will rise considerably, making for much longer rallies.

He also said the ball has been submitted for authorization.

Coach Carl Danner: Yes, hitting in general might experience a renaissance. Also, China will likely get another boost to its dominance, as its depth and variety of players will permit more rapid adaptation to the new conditions.

Dan Seemiller: I played with the Super Barna plastic ball in the late 70s and it had a uniform hardness and considerably less spin. The only complaint back then was they became shiny real quick. This ball will be better for the sport because of the reduction of spin.

I'm assuming the overall game will be slower because of the tremendous value of spin in generating ball speed. If this proves to be true, it will be easier to play defense, at the table and off the table, if the ball speed is less.

Lastly, the defensive capabilities will rise considerably, making for much longer rallies.

With all the talks about less spins and such, has anyone tested how much impact the new ball has on side spin around post shots?