OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Thankfully to the Lord, we have now got a beautiful machine to get the sport free of junkies (junk materials).
https://clck.ru/sRLHG

Be happy.

Ok,then,by the same token, Manika Batra 's bat could never pass this friction test ever and she is indeed competing with a dubious rubber,which is not to your liking .

The umpires turning a blind eye?....if her rubber passes the racket control so should the rest of amateur players with low or zero friction due to the wear and tear

Interesting that blowfish and blowfish+ still gets recommended. I thought they were superceded by Hexer pips, pips + and pips forcr

_________________
(\__/)
(='.'=) But there's no sense crying over every mistake,
(")_(") You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

In the context of the effectiveness of short pimples, what effect does sponge thickness have on backspin and/or speed?
For example, I play the Victas D3 usually in 2.0 but I wouldn't say it's significantly faster in this thickness than in thinner sponge thicknesses. In 1.0 I find the shot is definitely more controlled whereas the amount of backspin especially on dead balls is better in 2.0. That's why it's always very difficult for me to decide between the different sponge thicknesses. Control is generally good at all sponge sizes. Any opinions on this?

In general thinner sponge is more disruptive and better control for passive strokes unless extreme incoming spin. Thicker sponge allows to counter more spin more aggressively.
Chopping can be more passive or more active, so optimal thickness differs.
Slower blades definitely perform better with thinner sponges under rubbers (pips-in and pips-out). Some combinations of faster blades with thinner rubbers are bad, but I cannot tell so in general.

Totally agree with you. The question I often ask myself, what is more important more backspin or more control?

I know a SP defender at my mediocre level who lost significant backspin without gaining anything when he refreshed his SP with the same model but 0.2mm thinner version.

That's exactly the point. I also don't feel that I have much less control with thicker sponges. The game only becomes a little more indirect and feels less precise. The only thing I really think thicker sponges are a bit worse is the smash.

Is this 2.0 to 1 8? Or max to 2.0?

_________________
(\__/)
(='.'=) But there's no sense crying over every mistake,
(")_(") You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.

Not sure, seems 2.1 to 1.9 of Butterfly Impartial. Dunno which exactly.

It seems you have experience with the effects of short pimples. How do you rate the difference in backspin between thin and thick sponges, let's say between 1.0 and 2.0, is it really significant or negligible? With inverted rubbers the answer would be clear but what about short pimples?

Interesting topic for research, I think... Get one of each, the same type of rubber, mount them on the same blade, flip the blade around and get someone to feed you balls. Have a second person return the balls and evaluate how much spin is on it. And then report back here..

Iskandar

I was hoping someone here already had this experience!?

There may or may not be, but it shouldn't cost too much to try, and would be interesting. Especially if you can find some Chinese sheets.

Iskandar

It would certainly be interesting to prove that but shouldn't the amount of backspin be more with the thicker sponge?