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 Nov 2017, 02:19


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 Reply to topic  [ 216 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Author Message
PostPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 16:53 
Offline
New Member

Joined: 12 Sep 2017, 06:57
Posts: 4
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 4 times
Retriever wrote:
Edited to add: what makes you think that the ITTF cares about defensive play? Has any of their actions since and including the introduction of inverted rubber made defensive play any better?

I do not think that the ITTF cares about defensive play. A lot of rules have been specifically designed to curb defensive play. However I did not have the impression that the ITTF wanted to eliminate classic chopping defense for good. It is somewhat ironic that one of the few rule changes that were not designed to be anti-defense is now going to accomplish the eradication of defensive play.

However, I do think that the ITTF cares about the attractiveness of the game, and the new ABS balls lead to the winning strategy being "stand as close to the table as possible and kill-smash every ball". Right now, players are only beginning to adapt to that strategy, but once we see players that have been trained from the beginning to do that, we will hardly see any play beyond the third ball. I don't actually think this is the way the ITTF wants the game to develop.


Top
 Profile  
 


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

PostPosted: 19 Sep 2017, 06:48 
Offline
Full member

Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 19:55
Posts: 57
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Iguana wrote:
Are there any plans to do something to rescue defensive play (like, e.g. ... introduce a new ball specification regarding minimum spin)...?

I can only answer to this part, but with Yes. The friction between several balls and tables is currently investigated, and based on the data it will be decided whether a limit for friction can be introduced. We have seen the first results about this during the World Championships in Düsseldorf, but it is still ongoing research. The goal is to narrow the variation between the ball types a bit further, if still necessary, which will also mean that non-celluloid comes still closer to celluloid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Sep 2017, 07:00 
Offline
New Member

Joined: 12 Sep 2017, 06:57
Posts: 4
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 4 times
Torsten wrote:
Iguana wrote:
Are there any plans to do something to rescue defensive play (like, e.g. ... introduce a new ball specification regarding minimum spin)...?

I can only answer to this part, but with Yes. The friction between several balls and tables is currently investigated, and based on the data it will be decided whether a limit for friction can be introduced. We have seen the first results about this during the World Championships in Düsseldorf, but it is still ongoing research. The goal is to narrow the variation between the ball types a bit further, if still necessary, which will also mean that non-celluloid comes still closer to celluloid.

Thank you for the answer.
May I add that I think that friction is not the only, possibly not even the decisive factor, for the spin reception of a ball. It seems to me that the hardness of the ball is also quite important. That would explain why the non-durable first-generation plastic balls were more receptive to spin than the harder new ABS balls (and also the receptiveness of the softer celluloid). So (in case you are not already doing so) I would suggest that you include ball hardness in your investigation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Sep 2017, 08:35 
Offline
Super User
User avatar

Joined: 06 Jun 2015, 13:09
Posts: 575
Location: Las Vegas
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 48 times
Iguana wrote:
Thank you for the answer.
May I add that I think that friction is not the only, possibly not even the decisive factor, for the spin reception of a ball. It seems to me that the hardness of the ball is also quite important. That would explain why the non-durable first-generation plastic balls were more receptive to spin than the harder new ABS balls (and also the receptiveness of the softer celluloid). So (in case you are not already doing so) I would suggest that you include ball hardness in your investigation.


:up:

Yeah I think if we could get a slightly softer ball we would be much closer to celluloid, but then again that just makes serving problematic again for viewers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 28 Sep 2017, 07:48 
Offline
Bytes worse than his Bark
User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2011, 12:25
Posts: 995
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 149 times
Blade: OldNittaku Carbon
FH: Evolution FX-P max
BH: Tenergy 05 max
Torsten,

There has been some confusion about DHS D40+ balls between those dated XGAG (July 2017) and earlier.

Has DHS varied its apporoval of the D40+ balls this year?

According to some reports the XGAG version have a distinctly different seam structure to those dated XGAB.

There is also some conjecture that DHS may be rebadging old stock of their 40+ balls as D40+, or that some other organization is doing so, or that they are fakes from some other source.

Thanking you in advance.

My information is from a thread entitled "DHS D40+ to Be Released in April" on My Table Tennis forum:
http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=74937&PN=22#997040

_________________
Retriever (sometimes golden, but often leaden)
Moderator, Inverted Retriever Technique sub-forum - http://ooakforum.com/viewforum.php?f=74


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 Sep 2017, 07:57 
Offline
Full member

Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 19:55
Posts: 57
Location: Munich, Germany
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 32 times
No, there was no change in the approval of the DHS D40+ (otherwise it should again get a new name). Also, a substantial change in material by a manufacturer without notice to ITTF is unlikely, because the risk of this being detected during the random testing is high and may result in serious consequences. DHS has fully supported from the beginning that the new ball gets a new approval and a new name. And at least in Germany I see stocks of "the old" DHS 40+ balls being sold completely official, in the expected and legal way, without any member of the supply chain deceiving anybody.

I recognize in the postings, however, that people see the variations beyond a natural extent coming for example from the use of different batches of raw material. I cannot speculate about this. But should the lab data from all the OEM and clones we are currently buying show something unusual, we will of course take it up.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 216 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15



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: