OOAK Table Tennis Forum

I guess that's the mechanics of it.
Plus the chemical composition will also do some part.

Talk about 729 FX rubbers, there seems to be a variant with Japanese sponge under Kokutaku. It is not stated anywhere that it is a 729 "FX" rubber, but it has the 729 FX packaging.

https://tt-japan.net/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_2&products_id=203

Kokutaku also has a 729 FX with a Chinese sponge. Seems to be no difference to the original 729 FX, a "tighter" quality control maybe?

What is interesting is that there is also a variant that target choppers too.

https://tt-japan.net/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_2&products_id=205

Any insights on this?

Illegal sandwich rubber. Not allowed to be used where competition is played under international Regulations. Still, you are free to use this rubber for domestic events.

Like a lot of topsheets, the 729 Super FX topsheet is sold with a lot of different sponges. Some are from the 729 factory, some might even be assembled outside of China. The packaging is the OLD 729 Super FX packet with Guo Yuehua's signature on the front.



Perhaps these were specially ordered from the factory by Kokutaku. I don't think they were assembled in Japan, if not they probably wouldn't be packaged like this. The "chopper" version probably has softer sponge and only comes in the smaller thicknesses (they don't actually specify how thin is thin, I'd say 1.0mm for the thin and 1.5mm for the medium). These are bloody expensive, by the way - 2800 yen is maybe USD24 - more than twice what you'd pay from Chinese sources. Kokutaku is actually a Japanese company, they make and sell table tennis stuff in Japan, but there's a line of "Kokutaku" (or "Tuttle") rubbers (including the famous 868) and blades being made and sold in China. I don't know what the connection is between the two - I've seen indications that the equipment is designed in Japan but made and sold in China. I don't buy this - 868 is a quintessentially Chinese rubber - hard sponge, tacky (most of the time) topsheet. And it comes in a bewildering variety of sponge (and even tackiness!) options:

https://www.aliexpress.com/store/202364 ... chText=868

By the way, the NEW 729 Super FX packaging is this:



By the way, RITC/Friendship/729 actually makes a lot of different rubbers (not just 729 Super FX), and some of those come with Japanese or even German sponge:

https://www.aliexpress.com/store/group/ ... 95351.html

You can spot the German and Japanese sponge ones right away... they're the expensive ones.

Incidentally, just ignore Igor. He often doesn't know what he's talking about, but he spouts off anyhow, even if it makes him look silly. This is a good example. There is absolutely nothing here that indicates that these rubbers are in any way "illegal". They can be used in competition, it's even listed in the LARC.

Iskandar

MY MOST KIND RESPONSE TO ISKANDAR TAIB's VEXED STATEMENTS lately. (just for the sake of truth).

Dear Iskandar esq.
Ignorance of the Law is no excuse, you know. The Law is Order, you ought to know as well/

I am pleased to educate my venerable fellow scholar Iskandar Taib on the best correct application of the Rules of Table Tennis as regards the rubber legality and acceptability for international events.
First of all, let's look into the Rules of Table Tennis, the latest edition as enacted from the year 2014.

3. Regulations for International Competitions. And the given term of "sandwich rubber" is meant to be an entire combination of a single layer of cellular sponge with a pimpled rubber topsheet, according to the Rule 2.4.3.2.
Hence, both sponge sheet underneath and the upper rubber sheet must be authorised by ITTF/ in some way or other. All the sandwiched combinations (rubber + sponge), other than those attested by ITTF lab in Singapure, may not be marketed as ITTF approved products.

Be happy.

Looks like Igor doesn't understand the term "sandwich rubber". He seems to claim that the 729 Super FX being sold by tt-japan isn't "sandwich rubber", or it isn't approved by ITTF, or it doesn't have a ITTF stamp on the topsheet. Bizarre as always. I'd suggest staying away from any competitions he runs, he'll probably reject your rubber for some made-up reason.

Igor, you are making yourself look silly.

Iskandar

Well, this time Igor does have a point.

Technical Leaflet T4: Racket Coverings wrote:

[B 1, p.4]
Authorisation is given to the top sheet plus the top sheet / sponge combination.

There is some ambiguity in this rule, as to whether the approved top sheet can legally be attached to any sponge other than those approved for combination. If this is OK, then what is the reasoning behind requiring that all factory combinations be submitted for testing, and behind even granting authorisation to a topsheet/sponge combination? (See T4 section E.2.2, #3 listed, p.9)

However, there is no advice to players (in the T4, LARC, or elsewhere that I can find) about how to ensure that the topsheet/sponge is a legal combination. Perhaps we must now make do with the factory combinations, or we ignore the rule, trusting that nobody in our local league will ever care to make the effort of checking every minute detail. Or perhaps the intention of the rule is not as forbidding as it may be interpreted.

The testing procedure requires the maker to submit sponge of all colors (for red topsheet) and max thickness. It is not explicitly stated whether submitting different types of sponge is required, and the statement that samples be submitted with "thickest sponge available" implies that thinner sponge does not need separate approval. My conclusion from this is that the rules are badly phrased, and that interpretation to the letter, to the effect Igorponger states, is a mistake. This is also, as far as I can tell, the general conception of the rule among players and officials.

Also, the current LARC appears to me like a rushed work: a little clutter in the layout, and with silly spelling mistakes. Not relevant to the rule interpretation as such, perhaps, but a part of the big. messy picture...

There is also the issue with Ox pimple rubber, which can be combined with any sponge, AFAICS. I suspect that enforcing a poorly worded rule in the case of inverted users, but not pimple users, would be legally problematic.

_________________
Other setups:
SDC Custom Blade/Butterfly Dignics 80/Butterfly Glayzer
BTY Viscaria/Tibhar K3/Tibhar K3

Even if there is ambiguity in regards to sponge/topsheet combos, there is no indication whatsoever that THESE topsheet/sponge combos have not been approved by ITTF. In LARC 2019A:

https://ittf.cdnomega.com/eu/2019/05/LA ... -FINAL.pdf

scroll down to "Kokutaku" (No. 45) on page 4, third column, about half way down. The fourth rubber listed under Kokutaku is "Friendship 729 Super". Next he's probably going to claim that Nittaku's version of H3 is likewise "illegal" (that is listed on Page 3, under DHS).

As I said, Igor often doesn't know what he's talking about.

Iskandar

If you want to try out these cheap weird Chinese rubbers you can only get them from China, I guess.

I was using the Yinhe N11 blade. Lightweight, a little faster than the M8 I use today. It worked in the short game with other rubbers, but didn't have the amount of control I have with the M8 in the short game. It had a thunderous flat hit though.

Iskandar

I recently "heard" that Nittaku H3 / H2 rubbers are going to lose their ITTF LARC certifications Nittaku is discontinuing them I think

_________________
__________________________________________________________
Backup C-pen blades:

• TSP Black Balsa 7.0 :
  1. FH/BH-YRakza9/XOmegaVT
  2. FH/BH-TSP Spectol/Yinhe Qing OX
• 729 Bomb C-P : FH/BH-DHS H2 Orig/DHS H3 Orig
• TSP Versal :
  1. FH/BH-XOmegaVA/YJupiter-II
  2. FH/BH-*blank*

Fun blades:

• Yasaka Battle Balsa(ST) : FH/BH- DHS TG2Neo/Gewo HypeXT 47
• Dr. Neubauer
  High Technology
  Cypress-Carbon(ST)
  ***************************** : FH/BH-YRakza7/YRakza7

==========================================================

It's definitely not happening in the next 6 months in any case.. They're not on the "soon to be taken off the list" list at the end of the LARC.

By the way, in the LARC, these rubbers aren't listed under Nittaku (54), they're listed under DHS (24). Which makes me wonder where they're actually being assembled. Does DHS ship topsheets to Japan, or does Nittaku ship sponge to China? There's actually four of them -

24-035 Nittaku Hurricane II
24-036 Nittaku Hurricane III
24-037 Nittaku Hurricane Pro II
24-038 Nittaku Hurricane Pro III

Note that they have different numbers compared to the original H2 and H3 (24-002 and 24-108 respectively), which makes me think the topsheets are actually different - if anything, they have different "headstamps" with different numbers, and aren't simply H2 and H3 topsheets glued onto Nittaku sponge. The "Pro" versions will also have distinct topsheets, with the appropriate numbers. If these are to be discontinued it would be DHS, not Nittaku, who would make the decision, I think, unless Nittaku has suddenly decided to stop supplying sponge.

Igor will probably claim that these are "illegal", as well...

Iskandar