OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Since lately I find myself defending more often a bit away from the table, chopping and attacking at both wings, I have been looking around for a LP that would suit me better than Dawei Saviga V, 388D, 388D-1, Pogo, 837, or Globe 979. I re-read Dean Stretton's review of "Destroyer" and decided to see for myself how this rubber played, thinking I couldn't go far wrong, both because Stretton's reviews make good sense to me, and because Stiga is a reputable manufacturer. In fact, it is one of the oldest manufacturers of table-tennis equipment, medium sized compared to big European firms like Donic or Joola, Swedish, with strong connections to China. Liu Guoliang, now head coach of the Chinese National Men’s team, once used Stiga’s “Royal” short pips rubber and Stiga’s “Clipper” still is a favourite blade of Chinese attackers. Several outstanding Chinese women players are using Stiga blades. It seems a bit peculiar that a firm like this is not as well known as Donic or Butterfly, but perhaps Stiga’s philosophy is to focus on making good and sensible equipment instead of spending heaps of money on public relations and sponsorships; if so, this may explain why their prices are still more or less reasonable in contrast to those of bigger firms. The same kind of common sense approach may explain why Stiga manufactures “Destroyer”.

“Destroyer” is a top-class long pips rubber which in my opinion distinguishes itself from all other LP’s (except maybe Donic’s Akkadi L2) in being perfectly suited to a truly all-round defensive style. Its sponge is soft (about 38 degrees) and relatively slow (on one and the same blade, my 1.0 mm Destroyer was about as fast as my 0.5 mm black Saviga V); it can take off the pace of a fast ball rather well, but when used for hard hitting it still will produce a fairly fast ball. According to Noppen-test.de, its pips are 1.4 mm apart, 1.8 mm in diameter, which is unusually broad, and 1.5 mm in length, which means they do not easily bend (bending them involves good wrist-action). The tips are slightly ribbed, but have little friction, which provides decent unaided spin-reversal on passive blocks. The sides, however, have quite some grip; and when the pips are being bent, they flip back with very good elastic force. “Destroyer” will not produce quite as heavy backspin as TSP Curl P1R or Butterfly Feint Long III, but not much less either, and it attacks much better than both.
Because of grip and rigidity it is easy to attack backspin and topspin alike with "Destroyer" and because its pips are broad and hence easy to control, blocking is easy and placement can be very accurate. "Destroyer" plays more or less like a short pips rubber in this respect, except that it reverses incoming spin much better, especially when used actively. A flick or loop-drive against backspin, using good wrist-action, results in a medium paced ball loaded with topspin which will land very close to the net and stay very low after the bounce; for the opponent it is difficult to keep the ball low in turn, and so you can at will attack the return once more or defend against it. Against topspin the same stroke will most likely produce a low-spin or no-spin ball; but when the opponent returns, by necessity lifting this ball, you can flat-hit his return and produce significant backspin (and sink), or chop it and produce really heavy backspin. Scoops and side-sweeps (executed as with a frictionless LP) are very effective too. The variation it thus offers is one of the strong points of the rubber, but it also means you have to use it cleverly, so it is not as such a simple LP.
Away from the table “Destroyer” is capable of producing very heavy backspin off incoming topspin, but this requires very active use of the underarm and wrist. Less wrist-action results in less spin, which makes it rather easy to produce disruptive spin-variation. Because the rubber's speed is medium to low, it is easy to keep the ball on the table and place it deep, making life difficult for the opponent who may be surprised by the lack of speed after the bounce which can mess up timing. Chopping (or pushing) against backspin will produce some topspin when done without wrist-action; however, because of the grip of the rubber you have to take care to keep the ball low, by chopping well down and/or using a less open bat-angle. Chopping and pushing with a lot of wrist will produce backspin off backspin; you have to chop/push aggressively for this.

In my opinion “Destroyer” works best on a flexible blade. I finally decided to use it on a Stiga Tube Defensive blade, with a Stiga “Chop&Drive” 1.5 mm red on the forehand. This is an excellent combination for all-round play. The blade is slow but can generate enough speed for disruptive counter-attacks and for kills at medium distance or closer by. The “Chop&Drive” is medium fast, very controlled, very grippy but not really tacky, and produces very heavy backspin and topspin, but is much less sensitive to incoming spin than tacky/sticky rubbers. With the “Destroyer” this set-up is very well suited for a modern defence style at medium distance, alternating blocks, flips, chops, and fast attacks, constantly changing speed and spin.

_________________
Without opponent, no match.

Thanks Kees, very interesting indeed. As a swede I am glad that Stigas last rubbers seems to sell pretty well. I have however never tried the Destroyer but I am aware that Stretton and Greg Letts really likes it. And your review made me very curious. Today I use Dawei 388D with a soft 0,8 mm sponge on a Joo Se Hyuk. This works great for me (except when it comes to attacking with the pimples) but when I chop from distance with full power the strangest thing happens - I don't get much backspin. The most backspin is gained with a more gentle motion. This is, of course, very confusing for my opponents and it has a lot to do with what angle my bat is when chopping. The more vertical, the more backspin. Since I now you have used 388D a lot, I wonder if you have the same experience. And most of all - can you compare the Destroyer to 388D. Or is it maybe more like 388D-1? Thanks again for the review!

_________________
Def-attack's attempts to find balance between defence/attack | Getting better - health and game |
My Youtube

Def-attack, the Destroyer is quite different from any LP I've ever used; it took me weeks to get adjusted to it.
I've used all Dawei LP's extensively and the differences among them are small; Saviga V has the best reversal on blocks and is easiest in keeping the ball low over the net, 388 D-1 excels in chop-blocking closely behind the table and at mid-distance, and does a very good job when used for scoops and side-sweeps, 388D is best for safe chopping away from the table. All of them have pretty flexible, soft, easily bending pips as compared to Destroyer. Pips that bend easily will not snap back with a lot of force, so when chopping you can add only so much to the incoming spin. That is why a light touch works well with them: it is enough to bend the pips. If you do more, nothing more will be added, because nothing more is to be had from those pips.
The Destroyer's pips, however, are pretty rigid and snap back with force, so the harder/more you bend them, the more spin is added by the pips snapping back.
The Dawei rubbers are easier to use because of this, but of course they produce less heavy backspin, that is the trade-off. Still, the 388D can make quite a lot. I myself preferred the chop when you come under the ball (going down and forward, turning your wrist a little so you graze the bottom of the ball; you have to rotate your waist for this; for an example, watch the South Korean ladies chop this way); this way there is little forward speed and a lot of spin and if you can make the ball land close to the baseline it is hard to return in any other way than by looping it pretty softly and pretty high. But from a great distance or with very low balls, this doesn't work.
I also found the 388D quite good for attacking, but against topspin you do have to use your wrist like you would when looping with inverted.
There is one other thing the 388D does great: you can drive with it producing an almost dead ball in any situation against any ball, even when taking the ball late. Very nice for variation between chops or when you find yourself in awkward position. Just kind of puch-loop the ball, making solid contact with its backside and going up and forward sharply. Bring it low over the net. If your opponent loops without opening his bat, he'll net the ball.

_________________
Without opponent, no match.

There's a very good (almost 2000 level) player in our area who uses the Destroyer (I think in OX) to block and he can block just about any shot back, and also attack well with it. Seems very good for a close to the table game, he never really backs up to chop, so I don't have any comments about how it is to play against that.

_________________
"The greatest teacher, failure is"
USATT Rating: 1725
Blade: Stiga Cybershape Carbon
FH Rubber: Butterfly Tenergy 19 2.1
BH Rubber: Dr Neubauer ABS3 1.5

Just a remark as to the similarity between Destroyer and C8.

Noppen-test.de states Destroyer is:

Noppenlänge: 1,5 [PIP'S LENGTH in mm]
Durchmesser: 1,8 [DIAMETER in mm]
Abstand: 1,4 [APART in mm]
Dicke (Gummi): 0,4 [TOP-SHEET THICKNESS in mm]
Oberfläche: geriffelt [SURFACE: RIBBED]

And DHS C8 is:

Noppenlänge: 1,5 [PIP'S LENGTH in mm]
Durchmesser: 1,7 [DIAMETER in mm]
Abstand: 1,3 [APART in mm]
Dicke (Gummi): 0,3 [TOP-SHEET THICKNESS in mm]
Oberfläche: eben [SURFACE: SMOOTH]

By these figures these LP's may seem at first glance similar, but are really different.

_________________
Without opponent, no match.

Since Dean Stretton remarked in his review of Destroyer (black) that Double Fish 1615 (black) would generate more spin-reversal, this afternoon I compared Destroyer black 1.0 mm with Double Fish 1615 red (!) 0.8 mm. DF does reverse spin distinctively better, but (at least in red) is incapable of producing good backspin against heavy backspin, which Destroyer is quite capable of.
I also tested Destroyer against Meteor 8512 DEF red 1.0 mm, and to my surprise Meteor reversed spin even better than DF 1615. But it didn't produce backspin against backspin either, although it managed to produce no-spin.
For choppers, Meteor and DF might be the better choice, then. For all-round defenders, needing a more polyvalent LP, Destroyer would seem to be best, which would concur with the drift of Stretton's reviews.

_________________
Without opponent, no match.

I agree that destroyer is an excellent, under rated LP. If I did not have a good stock of TSP P1r I would be able to get along very nicely w destroyer. Decent price for a european LP too.

I am a former user of Destroyer also. I played with it for a good 18 months and I have found that I achieved the most success with a custom .6mm sponge. The pips last long and I haven't had any issues with broken pips. Consistent chopping and hitting can be achieved but lacks any deception. Chops get heavy only after multiple chops adding to the spin.

ttkenny wrote:
Deception is a tricky term, actually best avoided, in my opinion, or at least best not used as synonymous with disruption. LP's offer to various degrees the possibility to make it difficult for the opponent to continue to attack; but this disruption may be due to different factors. For example, classic defensive LP's like Curl P1R or Feint Long III disrupt the attack by offering the possibility to produce very heavy backspin, which makes the ball difficult to lift; producing heavy backspin is made possible by these pips by being very grippy, which also has a downside, viz. being sensitive to incoming spin. Then again, a very tough defence can also be achieved using LP's like Double Fish 1615 or Globe 979 which are much less sensitive to incoming spin, therefore less grippy, and so make less backspin ; the downside of this is that their user has to be prepared to chop the ball back a hundred times if required - or initiate attack himself. Destroyer is, I think, disruptive because it will, when used actively, produce from chopping more than enough backspin to make life difficult for an attacker, whereas it can also be used to attack both backspin and topspin, disrupting the rhythm of the opponent.

_________________
Without opponent, no match.

Kees, no problem. The Destroyer is more predictable and opponents do not have as much difficulty against the person using it. It is easy to use and is cheap to obtain.

One of the better players in our area, rated a little under 2000, uses Destroyer OX and does a lot of close to the table blocking and hitting with hit. He's quite nasty to play, so it CAN be used by players at a higher level. Due to my style, I have very good results against him, but other very good loopers have trouble with him. The ability to attack with the pips is what makes him really dangerous. Kinda like me.

_________________
"The greatest teacher, failure is"
USATT Rating: 1725
Blade: Stiga Cybershape Carbon
FH Rubber: Butterfly Tenergy 19 2.1
BH Rubber: Dr Neubauer ABS3 1.5

Yeah, but you have other things that make you dangerous though too Doug!

_________________
I'm always in the dark, but the Dark sheds lights upon everything!! Beauty is only pimple deep! Beauty is in the eye of the pipholder!
S/U 1: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Andro Rasant 2.1 . BH Red Tibhar Grass Dtecs
S/U 2: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Hexer+ 2.1 . BH Red GD Talon
S/U 3: Blade: Bty Gergely . No rubbers...thinking of adding Red Dtecs and Black Rasant
Aussie Table Tennis Shop / Aussie Table Tennis Facebook Page / Equipment Review Index / Read my Reb Report Blog: click here.

Ha ha ha, thanks Reb!

_________________
"The greatest teacher, failure is"
USATT Rating: 1725
Blade: Stiga Cybershape Carbon
FH Rubber: Butterfly Tenergy 19 2.1
BH Rubber: Dr Neubauer ABS3 1.5

I agree with Kees's very perceptive comments and with speedplay: Destroyer (1mm) is not very deceptive, but it is dangerous and extremely versatile. It's one of the very best rubbers out there...on the right blade.

The blade makes a huge difference to its performance. I have tried Destroyer (1mm) on each of the following:

• Hallmark Dr Neubauer "Strategy" blade (in the days before Hallmark and Neubauer split)

• Butterfly Matsushita Pro blade (the wooden one, not the Pro Special with carbon)

• Andro Fibercomp DEF

• Joola Chen Weixing

It worked brilliantly on the Strategy blade, but lost a huge amount of spin reversal and became almost useless on all the others. I note Kees's comment that it also worked very well on a Stiga Tube Defense blade.

Is this because the Strategy and Stiga Tube Defense are fairly soft and/or flexible, whereas the others are stiffer and/or have a hard outer layer? In other words, do you perhaps need more "dwell time" (which a softer / more flexible blade allows) in order for the grippy sides of the pips to bite in and work their magic? If so, does the same apply to other LPs with grippy sides -- do these become useless on a stiff/hard blade?

I'd like to see a few Ph.Ds written on the physics of LPs!

-----------------------------------------
Andro Fibercomp DEF
FH: 729 Transcend 2mm (red)
BH: Meteorite 1mm (black)

Algernon wrote:

To the first question: I think it is. Grippy long pips do not work well on stiff blades, which conversely are very rewarding with less grippy pips. It is the same for inverted rubbers; you want a flexible blade for a looper's inverted.
To the second remark: I think so. Same reason.

I have to confess that I'm still somewhat puzzled by the degree of success, or better: the feeling of being at home, I have with Destroyer. I have always felt much more secure with extra grippy pips, such as Meteor 8512, Dawei 388D and Globe 979 (see my posts), either red or black, OX or 0.5 (differences pale before the difference between OX and black 1.0). Now I think this may be due to the fact that I like to feel being in control of the rally, no matter what the opponent does. I want to be able to make my own spin, decide whether to attack or not, and so on. This is not as easy with red OX as it is with black 1.0, and Destroyer is exceptionally rewarding in this respect. So, personality may be an important factor! Theoretically I have known this from the start, but this really is the first time I've come up against it or realized it in practice. Now I think I am really beginning to understand Ding Song and defenders who like him use short pips instead of long pips. Different personality, different equipment, different tactics...

_________________
Without opponent, no match.