OOAK Table Tennis Forum

The OOAK forum used to have a review template that forum members were asked to refer to but that seems to have gone by the board and when people are only commenting on their experiences with a rubber rather than reviewing it, it's not really practical for every poster in the thread to complete a review template, so

1. What do you think when you read these types of comments when people describe their equipment

"generates insane speed and spin", "I can now do killer loops", "my forehand is now awesome", "with this rubber I can now block all day", "yesterday I lost to this player 3:0 but today when I switched to using Magic Power Spin rubber I couldn't miss and shot and destroyed them 3:0"

2. How can someone comment on equipment in a way that you can both believe and find helpful when you've no idea of their standard or equipment they've used in the past?

The biggest laugh I have is reading old posts where people have said they've found the best rubber for them, the ultimate, they'll switch to it now and then I look at their signature and see they've switched to something else that was around at the same time they made their earlier comments.

Other than having built up over time an opinion about someones posting style or knowing what equipment they've used, I find it very difficult to know.

I think most useful is if reviewers can give benchmarks. E.g. "Fast" isn't especially helpful but "A little faster than rubber x / blade y" can be if you have experienced rubber x or blade y. Same for spin, control, throw, hardness/softness etc. An honest description of the tester's level and style also helps. (Many players claim to be more attacking than their videos suggest.)
Properties such as weight can be absolute.

By the way, where can I buy Magic Power Spin rubber ? Sounds awesome and a keeper.

_________________
Timo Boll ALC ST
FH Tibhar Evolution MX-P Max
BH Tibhar Evolution FX-S 1.8
185g

Whenever I read something like this I know the reviewer is a beginner who doesnt know what they are talking about. For me, knowing the standard of the player is a must. I have read numerous posts where the reviewer will say something like: "Rubber bottoms out when counter-looping" only later to see a video of the reviewer play. It them becomes clear that the reviewer can barely hold a bat let alone loop.

carbonman, interesting perspective. Does this mean that only players of a certain ability can be trusted to review equipment accurately and a table tennis forum should do away with "equipment sections" or prevent members from even offering opinions about equipment unless they are of a "proven" standard?

And at what level does someone become qualified to review equipment?

Even if a pro reviewed equipment would you trust them if they were sponsored by the manufacturer of the rubber they're reviewing? By that I mean if someone was sponsored by Butterfly and they reviewed Butterfly equipment could you expect them to say anything negative about the rubber - sometimes pro's or sponsored players can't afford to "bite the hand that feeds them" at which point even though they are skilled players, their opinions become questioned.

It's a tough one - maybe only good players with no sponsorship ties would be best placed, or the human element is removed and reviews should be provided by science labs.

Or perhaps, ultimately review sections and reviews are pointless and people should stick to trying for themselves.

If I had the confidence I'd quit work and set up a custom fitting service for players - Players could come down, try out combinations of equipment, use analysis software like trackman in golf and pair up the player with a setup that works for them and stuff the reviews that people provide - myself included! Cost of fitting session £? - but what ever it was it would save shed loads of money I've wasted experiementing - but then the joy of EJ land would be lost.

Yeah, I even have trouble telling different rubber apart sometimes...

To be honest, I think a lot of sheets are just too similar to each other to make detailed reviews worthwhile. Go look through YouTube, you'll find some very high level players doing rubber (and blade) reviews. They'll go through a standard variety of shots, and come up with a conclusion in the end that says, in essence, "this rubber is good for just about everything, there's some niggling problem when receiving X type of serve or when you try to chop with it". I've NEVER come across a video that says "this rubber is horrible for blocking but good for looping". 95% of the rubbers they try, they come to the exact same conclusion. Yes, there are enough differences that make high level players choose one rubber over another (see how many play with ONE particular rubber - Tenergy 05 - there has to be a reason for it - especially when a lot of these players are actually sponsored by some other rubber company), but for the rest of us, it probably doesn't make much difference. The reason why there are so many rubbers out there is because they have to come out with one or two new ones every year to generate sales, not because there is any real pressing need for a new rubber. (Well, there is, actually - no one seems to have come up with an exact copy of Tenergy 05 yet! )

Iskandar

I am not going to stop anyone to offer their opinions on the equipment, technique etc. Just give me some idea about your level and play style so that I can evaluate it in context.



Same principle here - if there is sponsorship involved, if you got sample for free, you were paid for review - I would like to know this. Full disclosure and all.

I treat reviews as more of a rough "up/down" indicator - when everyone starts talking about 'hot' rubber, like recent examples of Big Dipper, Aurora, Battle etc., I make a mental note as a 'worth trying at some point', especially if it's on a cheap side.

As far as mentions of "throw angle", "dwell", "flex", "control" and more in reviews - I am starting to ignore these altogether, especially if I have no idea about reviewer level. Some people write much better than they play, myself probably included.

_________________
USATT: 1807 | League: 1887

I like video reviews so you can see people use reviewed equipment...

_________________
Blade: Yinhe (Galaxy) W-6 (flared)
FH: Friendship Cream Transcend (2.0 mm)
BH: Friendship Cream Transcend (2.0 mm)

I long ago learned to never spend money on equipment I had not tried myself.

_________________
Butterfly Viscaria Black tag
2.2 mm Nexy Karis M on FH and BH

What happened when there was a rubber out there that no one you knew had got so you couldn't try it yourself?

Baal, when you try yourself, do you take the rubber of the other persons blade and put it on your own blade?

I said that for me knowing the standard of a player is a must. I would like a reviewer to have uniform technique so that clear and clean comparisons can be made. They should also be able to play the strokes that they are claiming to be able to play! If others don't desire these standards then that's their concern.

Of course, a good player may not necessarily give an accurate review.

I have always thought that the most accurate reviews would be when a good part of the testing was against a robot. there is no other way to get the same ball to hit time after time so you can confirm your impression. I'm not really qualified to test rubbers or blades, but I sure do know how each one I try behaves against balls from a robot set a certain spin/speed. I even have a couple of blocks cut at angles that I can strap a bat to to see exactly how it compares to other rubbers/blades I have tried. My results? well I'll tell you something, I have about 20 moderately priced chinese rubbers that all give the same results. I have even tried taping close ups in slow motion to see if I can see any difference in the way they come off. My conclusions? 280 frames is not near fast enough to see anything of value. I also keep a standard to test against so I can "A/B". What is my "standard"? you'll laugh. Its a cheap old Prince blade with a sheet of Red T05 on it! (it has long pips on the other side)

All that said, I love to read other tests, regardless of the tester's skill level. I agree with others that it is most useful when a comparison is made against a standard. SO I think everyone should keep an old stiff blade with T05 on it around just to test other rubbers against.

on blade testing, I would really like to hear how a certain blade behaved with several different rubbers. Again based on my own unprofessional testing, some blades seem to "wake up" with certain rubbers and are real POS with others. My "Mouse" (Mahogany/kiri/mahogany) seems to be a case in point. with my old favorite, T05 it seems wild and crazy. If you tested it with that combo, you would most likely not say many good things about it. But with H3 nano, it seems like a dream paddle. Switch over to my Stradivarius, and it loves the T05 like no other, but is only so so with the H3! If a tester tested my strad with H3, he would most likely say "why would you pay that much for this blade?" while if he tested it with T05 he might say " perfect for looping and serves...".

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

_________________
Ratt Factory "ghost" (oversize kiri, balsa, kiri) innova UL/ Tibhar Grass D.tecs
Ratt Factory "mouse" (mahogany, kiri, kiri, kiri, mahogany) T05/ giant dragon talon
Tibhar Furious/ juic 999/ Tibhar Grass D.Tecs
Yasaka balsa plus/ RITC 837/ RITC 755 (friendship)
Newgy 1040 robot

As long as a player is of intermediate level and can play the basic strokes, I think the review can be quite useful.

Some players have a knack for feeling the difference between rubbers, some don't, and this is regardless of level (except those still learning the strokes). I know a few players from our local competition that play several grades below the top grade, and they are excellent at analysing the properties of a rubber/blade, and this becomes obvious when you speak to them, and discuss these properties and they share their understanding of these properties..

To me the most useful review is one where the rubber/blade is compared to something I know...and as long as the player can play the basic strokes, the review is useful to me... the more details and comparisons the better.

_________________
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

robots can give you a small bit of information and can be helpful but in real life trialing with normal practice partner and real games is a must
didn't we have a review template somewhere on here

_________________
Blade Ulmo Duality| FH Tibhar mx-p Black, Dawei 388D-1 red OX
NZ table tennis selector, ask a question
My Blog here..How table tennis objects are made
Table Tennis abbreviations, and acronyms

I like the review template.

I generally agree with what haggisv is saying but for the needs of some players an intermediate level is not high enough.For eg being able to competently employ different forms of contact when counter-looping is beyond the pay-grade of an intermediate player.

I think the other point I was trying to get at wasn't so much reviewers using the template but how people can add to a review and share their experiences. It's impractical to expect every poster on a thread to complete a template everytime they comment - not saying that's what suggested so far in this thread - so how can someone add something useful to the actual full review - the first post in a thread?

So far the suggestion that people stop saying "can loop for ever with this killer rubber" and replace it with "I play local league average standard in UK and find this rubber easier to generate spin with than x or y rubber I've used previously and I use X blade" seems to be a starting point. The post wouldn't be too long to complete but gets the main message across.

As for having to be a certain standard, I'm not so sure. To me a professional saying they can generate more spin with x rubber than y rubber means little to me because I don't have their technique so it won't matter which I use I won't be able to replicate their results. However, if someone tells me they are an average basement type player and they find x faster than y, then I can identify with that.

One thing I've learned is that unless you remove the "human element" from testing I need some baseline as to the standard of the player making the comment - doesn't matter to me what standard, just some standard as a gauge and an idea of what they've used in the recent past. However, just to contradict myself a little, when I've filmed equipment tests I've never reviewed them myself because I don't consider I have the technique to do them justice! Soo confusing what to do or require.