42mm ball?!?

beeray1 wrote: lol.. thanks for clearing that up.. but i had to say the rest of what i had to say anyway.. and i didnt mean to come off as a jerk like i sometimes do to people when i defend something.. so thanks.   But yes i dont understand why tv is so important. The internet is much more widely used now anyway.. and everytime you see thos popular points on the internet videos... everyone i show it to says... "oh man yeah ive seen that before isnt it great" not "why would i watch TT"

You guys are forgetting that Internet requires

a) having a really good Internet connection (not the case in a vast majority of households even in the North America). With the exception of South Korea, Japan and some European countries, TV will be a prevalent medium for many years still

b) knowing what to do with those computers, OS, media players, codecs etc. All you need to do with a TV is to pay some money to buy channels, then turn it on. So again, with the huge majority of spectators, TV is far superior in convenience to Internet streaming

c) and finally, more money than TV. You can buy a good TV for under 100 bucks or you can get it for free from a friend who is upgrading, so the hardware cost is almost zero. Electricity costs are lower for TVs, and usually people have TV in their homes anyway. Connection costs are similar - in the US about 50 dollars a month for a good cable package and about the same for a high-speed connection (rates may diifer, of course). For the computer, however, you need to pay some real money (let's say, close to a thousand dollars) because a used or old one won't be able to play your videos. Not to mention, computers are getting obsolete pretty fast - but a TV? you can use the same one for 20 years straight. Certainly you need to spend more of your time for the setup, downloading and installing software, even if you know what to do.

Clearly, your money/time/expertise expenses are way higher with Internet video streaming than with TV, and that will hold true for the foreseeable future.

You guy are already on the Internet and are using some more or less sophisticated software, so it's harder for you to understand why everyone is not doing the same. Believe me, they don't, and they won't... at least until we are all flying with the jetpacks on our butts and are implanted with web interface in a hospital when we are born.

thanks JimT- i didn't think of it like that.. I guess i was centering my attention towards the stereotypical american teenager.. who sterotypically knows what needs to be known about computers.. i left out the rest of the world... even i cant watch things at home because my internet and computer sucks... writing this right now i am in the middle of my college's computer lab. I have to do all my computer work at school.. so i guess you're right about that. But i still think Getting people to play first will popularize our sport more. TV isn't the whole answer.. it comes in time. But changing the game completely at the expense of TV just isnt the way i dont think. Either way, it's a long process with results coming down the road. TT will have its day, but I dont think changing the game to make it slower and "more exciting" (haha) will solve our problems at all. It will make the game less fun to play.. and all for the purpose of making it a spectator sport. Why does it need to be so popular and on tv anyway? What is the ultimate goal in mind? i dont really see an ultimate goal.. except more money. Thats all anything is ever about anymore is more money. However, i guess please enlighten me to a different reason.

beeray1 wrote: thanks JimT- i didn't think of it like that.. I guess i was centering my attention towards the stereotypical american teenager.. who sterotypically knows what needs to be known about computers.. i left out the rest of the world... even i cant watch things at home because my internet and computer sucks... writing this right now i am in the middle of my college's computer lab. I have to do all my computer work at school.. so i guess you're right about that. But i still think Getting people to play first will popularize our sport more. TV isn't the whole answer.. it comes in time. But changing the game completely at the expense of TV just isnt the way i dont think. Either way, it's a long process with results coming down the road. TT will have its day, but I dont think changing the game to make it slower and "more exciting" (haha) will solve our problems at all. It will make the game less fun to play.. and all for the purpose of making it a spectator sport. Why does it need to be so popular and on tv anyway? What is the ultimate goal in mind? i dont really see an ultimate goal.. except more money. Thats all anything is ever about anymore is more money. However, i guess please enlighten me to a different reason.   thanks

It may be not all about money, but usually money and popularity and TV ratings all go hand in hand. As for why we need it... well, I have resumed playing TT just about a year ago, and I went to more than a dozen tournaments, and I keep seeing same people.

Do you know how many USATT-registered players are there in Massachusetts? Less than 200! There are about 6-7 active clubs, each with 10-15 active members (I am not talking about non-USATT very amateurish guys and girls who come there just to kick the ball a little since their basement is now occupied by a second refrigerator instead of a TT table). We don't have coaches, we suffer from bad equipment, from poorly lit gyms, from having to drive an hour just to get to the club, from absence of leagues, etc etc.

Massachusetts' population is about 10 mln people. In Germany with population of about 85 mln there are 11,000 clubs and 600,000 registered DTTL  members... that means that TT-club density in Germany is about 200 (two hundred!) times higher... and TT-player density is 300 times higher. I am not saying we can reach that - Germans had a long running TT club tradition so that kind of thing cannot be done fast... but if we could increase the ratio from 1/200 to at least 1/20 that would be a huge breakthrough in the US.

11 point games I prefer too, It favours the player more willing to attack on the first 3 points and that's me. 40mm ball forget it :)

If Sharara's point is to slow the game down, wouldn�t it be easier just to set maximum allowable sponge thickness to 2.2 mm?  It would be less traumatic, and easily enforceable.  All these other rule changes in quick succession wreak havoc with our game...  The 40 mm ball and the 11 point game required a lot of adaptation, and now it is OK.  Now the glue and frictionless LP ban...  they should leave the game as it is for the next 5 years at least...  let�s vote to put a 5-year moratorium on rule changes!!!

THEY JUST f**kING AGAINST AND JEALOUS OF THE CHINESE. TRYING TO GIVE MORE ADVANTAGE TO THE EUROPEAN PLAYERS

the europeans were the 1st to use speed glue in widespread use... seems unlikely that a glue ban would just affect the Chinese.

changes like taking speed glue away was aimed at levelling the playing field. for the pro who always uses speed glue, playing against amateur who doesnt, was ridicolously unfair.

any changes that makes table tennis more playable is a benefit, taking away wonky pimples was another good step, for those who just picked up ttennis to then play a pimple player is dis-heartening, winning off another persons unforced or forced errors because of a wonky rubber spin is not honourable.

bigger ball, higher net, equates to longer rallies and greater enjoyment. so what if the game is slower, all the better i say. winning should not be the primary focus of any sport, but a 'fun factor' that enables more to enjoy the sport.

imagine if tennis was a game such that the net was so low, that you easily ace your apponent everytime u serve, the game will be just about serves only--> boring. raise the net height, and u create a new dimension for the sport. imagine also, if the ball was the size of a marble, the speed would be phenomonal, and the game would be so fluke-y

change is always meant for the better.