OOAK Table Tennis Forum
https://ooakforum.com/

Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball
https://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=23056
Page 1 of 3

Author:  Fashion ball hf [ 21 Jun 2013, 11:51 ]
Post subject:  Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball

Cut separately Polyball and seam ball into two halves, and take a photo and attach the illustration of thickness difference on all parts of the balls (the white is seamless ball, the yellow is seam ball). From the photo, every part of the thickness of seamless ball is basically the same, so the accuracy of falling point and bounce uniformity are better. The thickness differences of seam ball on three parts - seam, wrist and bottom are very big, we just press the three parts by a finger and can obviously feel its thickness difference. Due to the thickness difference, when the ball with the same speed and different parts touch on table and racket, its rebound direction, rebound speed and rebound power are different, which cause the misjudgment of player on the curve, bounce height, falling point for the coming ball, then lead to unnecessary mistake and lose points. Including the players with amateur level often have such experiences: the ball they strike back with quite confidence to get score inexplicably drop to net or out of table. A big reason for this is the bounce inconformity on every part of the present seam ball. This point has been proved by the two experiments on bounce regularity of two types of balls taken by high-speed camera and falling point regularity tested by professional testing method.
Please see the following website about the photo: http://tieba.baidu.com/p/2407256150
Image

Image

Author:  Crazy Goat [ 21 Jun 2013, 12:20 ]
Post subject:  Re: Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball

Just out of curiosity, which ball company do you work for?

Author:  hookshot [ 21 Jun 2013, 12:35 ]
Post subject:  Re: Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball

No doubt, it is either a ball company or the ITTF. I suspect the latter but it's hard to see through all the smoke. :^) :rofl:

Author:  foam [ 21 Jun 2013, 12:58 ]
Post subject:  Re: Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball

These guys are spamming all over the net!. There's even one on pingskills talking up how great his plastic balls are. Gota watch them, they seem pretty dodgy and sneaky.

Author:  PRW [ 21 Jun 2013, 13:02 ]
Post subject:  Re: Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball

I had a brief hit with a Palio plastic ball last night. Very weird - side spin seems very strong on serve, chop and topspin not. Ball bounces a bit higher, but is clearly slower. There is also unexpected movement through the air (sideways) which was a surprise. More testing to be done this weekend... :^)

Author:  j-bo [ 22 Jun 2013, 03:47 ]
Post subject:  Re: Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball

I still put my money on Palio putting out all of these posts everywhere.

I think they are slamming as much as possible, the seamless ball....why?

Because the ITTF went to DHS, and DHS canned the seamless ball and went to the seamed ball.

I really can't fathom the ITTF approving 2 totally differently manufactured balls. So who do you think the ITTF will go with? DHS obviously.

Then again..it might be whoever gives the biggest kickbacks.

Author:  Red_lion [ 27 Jun 2013, 10:09 ]
Post subject:  Re: Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball

So the seamless ball from DHS work the same with celluloid ball after all?

Author:  haggisv [ 27 Jun 2013, 10:12 ]
Post subject:  Re: Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball

Red_lion wrote:
So the seamless ball from DHS work the same with celluloid ball after all?

I would not bet on it... not until I've seen an independent review from an unbiassed player.

Author:  Red_lion [ 27 Jun 2013, 11:19 ]
Post subject:  Re: Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball

Thanks alex. I'm counting on you 8)

Author:  wturber [ 27 Jun 2013, 16:35 ]
Post subject:  Re: Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball

j-bo wrote:
I still put my money on Palio putting out all of these posts everywhere.

I think they are slamming as much as possible, the seamless ball....why?

Because the ITTF went to DHS, and DHS canned the seamless ball and went to the seamed ball.

I really can't fathom the ITTF approving 2 totally differently manufactured balls. So who do you think the ITTF will go with? DHS obviously.

Then again..it might be whoever gives the biggest kickbacks.


If the Palio ball tests fine, they would almost surely approve it. That doesn't mean that they will specify its use in their tournaments though. There are many ITTF approved balls that the ITTF does not use in their tournaments.

Author:  j-bo [ 27 Jun 2013, 23:47 ]
Post subject:  Re: Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball

wturber wrote:
j-bo wrote:
I still put my money on Palio putting out all of these posts everywhere.

I think they are slamming as much as possible, the seamless ball....why?

Because the ITTF went to DHS, and DHS canned the seamless ball and went to the seamed ball.

I really can't fathom the ITTF approving 2 totally differently manufactured balls. So who do you think the ITTF will go with? DHS obviously.

Then again..it might be whoever gives the biggest kickbacks.


If the Palio ball tests fine, they would almost surely approve it. That doesn't mean that they will specify its use in their tournaments though. There are many ITTF approved balls that the ITTF does not use in their tournaments.


Sure they do... but none currently have 2 totally different structures. There is no way a seamed and seamless ball will play the same.

Author:  wturber [ 28 Jun 2013, 01:12 ]
Post subject:  Re: Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball

j-bo wrote:
wturber wrote:
j-bo wrote:
I still put my money on Palio putting out all of these posts everywhere.

I think they are slamming as much as possible, the seamless ball....why?

Because the ITTF went to DHS, and DHS canned the seamless ball and went to the seamed ball.

I really can't fathom the ITTF approving 2 totally differently manufactured balls. So who do you think the ITTF will go with? DHS obviously.

Then again..it might be whoever gives the biggest kickbacks.


If the Palio ball tests fine, they would almost surely approve it. That doesn't mean that they will specify its use in their tournaments though. There are many ITTF approved balls that the ITTF does not use in their tournaments.


Sure they do... but none currently have 2 totally different structures. There is no way a seamed and seamless ball will play the same.


Right. A well made seamless ball should play more consistently - which would be better. The ITTF is already working on methods for approving a seamless ball. Every indication so far is that the ITTF is willing to approve both types.

Author:  j-bo [ 29 Jun 2013, 01:34 ]
Post subject:  Re: Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball

wturber wrote:
Every indication so far is that the ITTF is willing to approve both types.


And there is something intrinsically wrong with that.

Author:  wturber [ 29 Jun 2013, 01:48 ]
Post subject:  Re: Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball

j-bo wrote:
wturber wrote:
Every indication so far is that the ITTF is willing to approve both types.


And there is something intrinsically wrong with that.


What is intrinsically wrong with it? Tennis has multiple ball types and playing surfaces. Every baseball field is a bit different. I don't think there are many artificial football surfaces these days, but for years there were both natural grass and artificial fields. Stadiums are sometimes closed - sometimes open. We allow a myriad of racket surfaces in table tennis and allow significant variance in table top surfaces. Floor surfaces vary.

I see more problem with having two different tolerance ranges and hence different sized balls than I do with having a seamed and seamless ball.

Author:  Coxeroni [ 29 Jun 2013, 04:12 ]
Post subject:  Re: Structural contrast of Polyball & seam ball

wturber wrote:
j-bo wrote:
wturber wrote:
Every indication so far is that the ITTF is willing to approve both types.


And there is something intrinsically wrong with that.


What is intrinsically wrong with it? Tennis has multiple ball types and playing surfaces. Every baseball field is a bit different. I don't think there are many artificial football surfaces these days, but for years there were both natural grass and artificial fields. Stadiums are sometimes closed - sometimes open. We allow a myriad of racket surfaces in table tennis and allow significant variance in table top surfaces. Floor surfaces vary.

I see more problem with having two different tolerance ranges and hence different sized balls than I do with having a seamed and seamless ball.

Good talk!

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC + 9:30 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/