OOAK Table Tennis Forum

dear adham, if you would have read my comments more closely you would have noticed that i never specifically called you a liar, but members of the ittf that are responsible for this mess. the claim that the the ban of these rubbers primarily was directed to take effect on a pro-level (where no one plays these rubbers) is a flat out lie, any ittf member claiming this is insulting everyone elses intelligence.

so let me be specific and kindly point out where exactly you have answered these questions specifically and if not, kindly do so to actually do some effort in trying to restore the ittfs image:

1) an ominous letter reached the ittf complaining about a "rather frictionless" tt-master ruber. what exactly were the ittfs next steps?
a) did the ittf find that every single insider or swingback if after it they had been approved did not meet the requirements any longer (meaning that they were different to the original version) or were there mere inconsistencies in the production?
b) if so, how many rubbers did the ittf test and how many of these rubbers did not meet the requirements?
c) where exactly on paper does the ittf state how many "inconsistant" rubbers lead to the elimination of a specific rubber?
d)how many mN did these sheets reach?

2) how does the machine work that tests the friction and why is the ittf reluctant in providing further information on this matter?

3) what exactly happened to the tt-master crossbow, it was approved and then mysteriously vanished from the list.

_________________
Blade: Barna Original Triumph Forehand Yasaka Razka Po Backhand Der-Materialspezialist Störkraft 0.8
http://www.instagram.com/dragontattooguy

Hi Adham,

There's still so much anger about the way frictionless was banned, which most "material" players (including me) consider unfair. I realize this was not your personal initiative, but since the main perpetrators that pushed this policy are pretty much faceless and nameless other than Ebby Schoeler and since you're "out there" as the face of the ITTF, people vent toward you.

Just a few points. Newbies are actually a nightmare for frictionless players (no spin hell). It's the intermediate players that experience some difficulty. But as you correctly pointed out, players simply need to develop their game to get past this level.

Also, people who take the game seriously play in some type of organized competition, so your 'play as you like' recommendations aren't practical. What's the point of playing Super Block in practice matches at the club but not being allowed to use it in real competition?

Finally, if you were to test a sheet of factory-tuned rubber that measured more than 4mm, such as a few pros have been DQ'd for, why are those illegal rubbers not banned? On the surface, it seems TTMaster wasn't treated the same as some other companies that produce and sell allegedly illegal rubbers.

I appreciate you taking the time to contribute to the forum.

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out. | My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

My whole set-up costs less than a sheet of Butterfly Dignics

On the contrary, it is very fair. These rubbers weren't good for business. Imagine this bunch of people keeping the same sheet of rubbers "for years", without changing (buying). This is outrageous !
Besides, they were causing problems to the good guys (understand, tensor and expensive euro/jap rubber customers), who couldn't understand spin reversal.
The frictionless ban has created a noticeable boost in pimple business last year. All my league mate who were previously using this kind of rubbers have had to look for something else and test and test again. Some have found their happiness, some have changed their game, lost their ranking or quit the game. Who cares...

As for Adham (our VHM : very honorable member), we all agree (I guess) his presence in this forum is a very valuable asset. The time and the patience he spends here are priceless and we are very grateful for that. That said, he's a member as we are. No more nore less. When he commits arguable statements it is normal we argue. Same to any members here (including myself). When I'm talking nonsense, please let me know. Ok some comments here have passed the limits but I haven't seen anything too harsh compare to what we can read elsewhere. He, we are big boys. I'm sure he, we can handle it.

_________________
Joola Rossi Emotion
T64 + Express one

Thank you for proving my point, perhaps inadvertently ! Yes, you are wrong ! (I know, it is very childish...but I couldn't resist ) . We both agree there is no equipment particularity which can resist to a good learning, coaching. I needed less than 2 or 3 sessions to teach my clubmates how to counter frictionless pimples. So, why the h... did you ban them ? You can't prevent people having a brain to ask themselves and to ITTF the question. It has no sense unless you enter the economical item in the calculation. You said previously that you, personnaly, were not in favor of this ban. I find it is very admirable you still defend ITTF decision eventhow you were against it. Still, I humbly suggest you to find better explanation otherwise people will keep asking and asking.

_________________
Joola Rossi Emotion
T64 + Express one

Here I have to disagree.

There are different requirements in TT Laws of ITTF, some of them apply to the top sheet only, others apply to the whole racket covering. If a racket covering does not meet any type of requirements, it is illegal. Hence, if a manufacturer produces racket coverings more, than 4mm thick, they produce illegal racket coverings.

As far as I understand the point of mynamenotbob, he pointed out the following contradiction: some inconsistencies with TTmaster rubbers led to the ban of those, whereas producing rubbers more than 4mm thick did not have such consequences.

Hi Smartguy,

Yes that is what I was trying to say.

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out. | My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

My whole set-up costs less than a sheet of Butterfly Dignics

I see. So you're saying there should be no penalty to companies who manufacture and sell illegal rubbers that don't meet ITTF rule 2.04.03 pertaining to overall thickness whereas if one isolated sheet of pips (even if already ITTF approved) is determined to be a micro-neuton off on friction as determined by a secret machine with secret settings, then that company gets the death penalty and all sheets of those pips on the market -- even if they meet the friction requirement -- are banned at great expense to the company and thousands of players who use it.

In other words, if a player unknowingly buys a sheet of factory-tuned inverted rubber that's illegal, then only that player is penalized if they're caught. However if a player buys a legal sheet of pips with proper friction, but one other sheet somewhere else doesn't meet the criteria of ITTF Technical Leaflet T4, then all players using that rubber (even if legal) are penalized.

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out. | My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

My whole set-up costs less than a sheet of Butterfly Dignics

This impression is quite understandable after Adham expressed his opinion about "factory tuning" being legal. However, I did not find anything in the ITTF rules, that supports the idea about legal difference between "factory tuning" and "non-factory tuning".

The whole thing about modification begins with the authorisation as a starting point. What happened to the top sheet before the authorisation is beyond ITTF regulations.

Who is allowed to alter or tune what was the point of my previous post. I did not find in the ITTF rules anything about legal difference between "factory tuning" and "non-factory tuning".

I would not call the process of creating a top sheet or parts of this process "tuning" or "modifying". The manufacturer may dance around the top sheet or put it under the pillow before authorization, important is, that their top sheet comes through.

Tuning is an additional action.

Dear Adham,

I carefully read the previous pages, so I hope this question has not already been answered.

Is it legal according to ITTF rules to remove the sponge from a rubber and to replace this sponge by another sponge? An international referee from Germany recently claimed that this procedure is not allowed even if all other rules concerning racket coverings are followed (e.g., thickness). Could you please comment on this?

Thanks,
Norbert

Hi, Norbert //This is the ready answer to your inquiry. I am of the same opinion on the question as Mr. Kovac's. http://www.usatt.org/rules/stumpump/stump97/01.shtml ///Igor, national umpire, Russia.

Yes I agree too, it is perfectly legal as long as the max thickness is not exceeded and the sponge is legal (a sponge off another legal rubber should be fine).

I would like to hear from the German umpire, why he felt this ws not allowed... there may have been another reason....

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide

The German umpire refers to paragraph 2.4.7 where it says "The racket covering shall be used without any physical, chemical or other treatment".

He does not say what kind of treatment changing the sponge is.


In the meantime Odd Gustavsen answered to my question and he wrote:

"ITTF only authorises the top sheet, not the sponge. The Law 2.4.3. governs
the use of sponge."

Accordingly, I still think that this procedure is legal according to the rules and regulations of ITTF.

I think a better rule is to authorize the WHOLE rubber. Though I don't know how would you check this, at least this stops anyone using Bryce Topsheet with Tenergy Sponge or something.
I think there's a rule where it specifically says You can't use a rubber that changes the characteristics nor you can't use a sponge which expands. If my guess is correct then it cancels out rule which says you only authorize the topsheet since it says RUBBER meaning the topsheet and sponge together and if you change the topsheet and sponge of the rubber, wouldn't that be chancing the characteristics?

_________________
Blade: Avalox P500 FL
FH: LKT Black Diamond
BH: Palio HK1997 Biotech Biotech(36-38)