OOAK Table Tennis Forum

I heard a rumor that a mystery player had entered a USATT tournament to nullify the Durban Aspect Ratio Regulation of 1998 & to make High Aspect Ratio rubbers legal & acceptable in all USATT & ITTF tournaments.

My understanding of this as follows :- Before his first match starts, if his opponent asks to “examine” his racket, this player will gladly agree his opponent to “examine” his racket , but one & only after the tournament makes available all the detailed “chemical examination” equipment & procedures available FIRST, to perform a thorough & exhaustive “chemical examination“ of all rackets used by all the players in this tournament. This player is NOT looking to cause any trouble & not grandstanding. All he asks is that “Please live & let live”. He respectfully requests that USATT & ITTF respect his health & his concerns of second-hand effects dangerous chemicals especially given that we are unfortunately living in the pandemic of COVID & given the unfortunate relationship between COVID causing lung issues & dangerous chemicals possibly causing lung cancer. All he respectfully asks is that his opponents do not ask for a “visual examination” of his racket unless a thorough & exhaustive “chemical examination” of all rackets have been performed FIRST before every match & all matches. Unfortunately spot checking is not acceptable due to above stated possible interconnected health reasons of COVID & VOCs & especially given that his opponents already start with a 2 or 3 point advantage per game due to current ITTF rules with a tilted playing field due to the Durban Aspect Ratio Regulation of 1998 & few other rule changes that followed in egregious violation of civil rights & Olympic ideals
The best option here for USATT is to let this player play without his opponents visually examining his racket & allow him to nullify the Durban Aspect Ratio Regulation of 1998 & thus make high aspect ratio rubbers fully legal in all USATT & ITTF tournaments & address the issue of “chemical examination” of rackets separately but immediately later unless USATT performs a thorough & exhaustive examination of ALL rackets for not only any VOCs but also any other dangerous inorganic content at this tournament & all future tournaments.(Health issues & chemical issues are still very important but USATT must make a decision starting with July 10 as to how to handles this going forward) USATT must perform these “chemical examinations” at not just 5 star or 4 tournaments ONLY but at all USATT sanctioned events from 0 star to 5 star. Also just using some mickey mouse Enez machines or later ITTF equipment that only partially tests for few chemicals is not acceptable. USATT cannot demand a “visual examination” of rackets FIRST simply because health issues have much higher priority. So if USATT & ITTF wants to perform a “visual inspection” , they must first complete a thorough “chemical examination”. USATT (or USOPC) or ITTF (or IOC) cannot just claim this is just a two star local tournament & therefore no chemical testing is needed. If they claim so, that means they claim that the health of an amateur player is insignificant compared to a professional table-tennis player.
Even if complete & exhaustive “chemical examination” is performed at this tournament, this players still intends to try to use a high aspect ratio pips rubber. It is upto the USATT & the tournament director & referee & opponent players to decide what is the ethical thing to do > Do you want to continue to enforce a childish regulation upon pips players and ban high aspect ratio pips, while others have enjoyed the illegal benefits of speed-glues & boosters (since 1995), though ITTF had claimed they are not legal according to ITTF, just to hoodwink the IOC. Your choice. I hope you make the right decision and help void the oppressive Durban Aspect Ratio Regulation of 1998 & let players use high aspect ratio pips for a level playing field. If this player will not be allowed to use a high aspect ratio rubber, he is not going to contest it or argue & cause a scene but will accept it peacefully but take it up in the future with ITTF & IOC etc as necessary, by all peaceful legal means. He profusely apologizes for bringing this up just before Olympics but I guess if Olympic ideals are violated in every which way by the USATT & ITTF , I guess it is an issue that may be needs to be addressed by Thomas Bach since IOC effectively controls ITTF, just as USOPC controls USATT (Keeping in mind that USPOC effectively fired the entire board of directors of USATT in 2019)
But please note that once this player is officially allowed to use high aspect ratio rubber in this tournament, that officially renders the 1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Regulation null and void by default & sets a precedence for any & all players to freely use high aspect ratio pips rubbers in any USATT or ITTF & affiliates’ tournaments. So the only alternative is for the USATT to brutally prevent this player from playing in this tournament by demanding a “visual examination” FIRST before or without a “chemical examination” , while allowing the speed-glue & booster cheats continue as usual with impunity. To emphasize again, he is not looking to cause trouble for anyone and all he asks is live & let live in peace.

NEVER, NEVER MORE.

DEAR FRIEND,
Take into consideration, please. Those long ultra-flexy pimples, such as TIBHAR Super Grass odd erratical pimples and the many more like products, were unanimously declared as "odious material highly detrimental for our sport" by an international panel of experts.
Truth to say, there is none decent chance for you to get those weird materials back. Sorry.

I am quite sure you are aware of the history of table tennis especially from 1995. You need to look at this in this context.
Please refer to following page
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=38001&p=388298&hilit=dark+history#p388298

Even if you look at it in isolation , are you seriously claiming that the 1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Regulation is a logical one, based on technical merits only ? All this has been discussed and explained 100s of times & I will not get into that.

Some background information may be at this page as well
http://dittf.atwebpages.com/test1/cancel.htm
You will see in that page that Aspect Ratio (& friction) cannot be used as sole determinant of unpredictability. That is fraud. Plain & simple. This player is not asking for increase in unpredictability, as it is possible to design long pips rubbers with minimal unpredictability but ITTF cannot fraudulently use just one parameter such as Aspect Ratio to punish defenders.
Feint Long 1 was used by almost every pro & advanced defender before 1998 but ITTF banned it. Ask Matthew Syed.

As he had pointed out before, the current batch of High Aspect Ratio rubbers could be on the more unpredictable side . But ITTF can regulate it and allow for development of rubbers with more backspin for defenders without any increase in unpredictability. But ITTF cannot use Aspect Ratio as sole determinant

What international panel of experts ? Name them. I would like to ask these experts whether Feint Long Classic is far more detrimental to the sport than speed glues & boosters

These international panel of experts may also be looking at this from the limitation 2.0 mm as maximum length. That is not acceptable. You have to look at it from total 4 mm thickness, which means a rubber with longer pip length but also wider. to keep the Aspect Ratio down to about 1.5. Nevertheless the current AR limit is a huge joke. Even the 1.3 before 1998 needs to adjusted to compensate for loss of backspin with the 40 ball, Pip Density rule & 40+ ball. So approximate but not exact acceptable limit can be at least 1.5. But at the very worst case, the 1998 value of 1.3 does not even need to be discussed at all, because the 1998 regulation has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with technical merits but was simply a business feud between Scholer & Dr.Neubauer . Nevertheless Scholer, an equipment peddler, should never ever have been, of all places on the ITTF equipment committee. If that is not the most monumental conflict of interest, I do not know what is.

So you claim that this player will be ONLY subjected to visual examination of the racket with no prior chemical examination of all rackets ? Are you freaking serious ?
So in the eyes of the IOC, the health of a low level amateur player is insignificant compared to a professional player ? Thanks for the laughs.

Unanimous ? :- The Aspect Ratio actually failed at Tianjin BGM in 1995 and passed by the closed possible margin of only 2 vote difference like 19-17 or 21-19 or something in Durban

odious material :- Are you referring to speed glues & boosters ?

International Panel of experts :- Still waiting for the names of these "experts" who will unanimously agree that Feint Long Classic must have been outlawed while boosters & speed-glues are perfectly healthy & have no second-hand harm