Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET Homepage
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Frictionless pimples still allowed?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

megaspin.net
Forum Home Forum Home > General > ITTF President answers you

Frictionless pimples still allowed?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
BeaverMD View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 11/09/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1329
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BeaverMD Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/10/2009 at 6:20pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

 
I know that you asked Figgie but as I said before, there is NO OBJECTIVE way to test long pips for friction. ITTF does not even release the information of what pressure on the ball that is used for their test, so how would anybody know. It's a subjective decision.  It's just like DQing someone because the rubber sounds like it was boosted. Some boosters can't be detected by ENEZ, so it's just as possible to DQ someone based on the way the rubber sounds or maybe how it reacts. Again, I'm not aware of a single case where a player was DQ'd for not meeting the friction limit on long pimples.. I believe that Adham himself said that non ITTF sanctioned tournaments will have to rely on the list. This has also been extensively discussed with Jay Turberville who is a Referee.. He claimed that he rejected players using certain rubbers that showed evidence of treatment under a magnifying glass. However, if there is no visual evidence, he said that he would not DQ anybody as he can't objectively determine friction as there is no equipment to do that test accurately.
 
Hi Push,
 
Correct, that's why I asked Figgie the second question of how he maintained fairness.  Like I said, one umpire checking could be a 240 lb bodybuilder.  Good for LP players because he will probably apply more pressure as he rubs the ball on the pips.  On the other hand, you might have an umpire that is 90 lbs and won't apply so much.  Then the ball will slide more of course.  And you can have different umpires in between with varying pressures.  So that's why I asked.
Back to Top
figgie View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member


Joined: 01/28/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1034
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote figgie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/10/2009 at 7:03pm
Originally posted by BeaverMD BeaverMD wrote:

Hi Push,
 
Correct, that's why I asked Figgie the second question of how he maintained fairness.  Like I said, one umpire checking could be a 240 lb bodybuilder.  Good for LP players because he will probably apply more pressure as he rubs the ball on the pips.  On the other hand, you might have an umpire that is 90 lbs and won't apply so much.  Then the ball will slide more of course.  And you can have different umpires in between with varying pressures.  So that's why I asked.
 
i'll address this now that I am off work.
 
table tennis balls have a standard weight of 2.7 grams, minus .3 grams or plus .7 grams deviation allowance. There is zero need to exhert any more force than the mass/weight of the ball produces to test LP (that is how you keep repeatability) After all what the test is doing is test the sliding coefficent of friction. So what this means, 400 lbs person or 110 lbs person, the force is being exherted by the mass of the ball NOT the person.
 
Simple newtonian physics (particularly Law numero uno) dictates that an object at rest (or in motion) will tend to stay at rest (or in motion) until an external force is applied.
 
Guess what, frictionless LP provide negligible force on the ball so the outcome is that the "ball barely moves" when placed on the paddle and the paddle moved in a 2 dimensional plane. Try that with short pips and the ball does move around conciderably (from the increase in friction). Even "anti" spin rubber imparts a force on the ball and it does move (there by complying with newtons law numero uno and not defying it).
 
So there is the "objectiveness" which is based on sound physics and particulalrly two equations
 
Newtons first law of motion
Dynamic Coefficent of friction
Speed glue, booster, tuner free since 2006!!!
Back to Top
roundrobin View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/02/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3565
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote roundrobin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/10/2009 at 7:13pm
I'm actually into cars too.. I've got a pretty fast '68 Corvette that runs mid 9's on a 100 shot and will run 8's on the full 250 shot.. Also own other Corvettes.. I'm actually better known under "GrandSportC3". Over 141000 posts on the Corvetteforum.. That has to give me a huge e-penis LOL
My blue/white '68 is one of the fastest Independent Rear Suspension Vettes on the planet.. There are only a handful of them that are faster.
 
 
 
NHRA Competition Drivers  License 271X


Nice car Olivier!  I had a red Acura NSX for three years (bought new in '99).  Then gave it to my brother-in-law after he got married.  I think he still has it.  Before the NSX I had a red Porsche 911.

William
Back to Top
roundrobin View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/02/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3565
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote roundrobin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/10/2009 at 7:17pm
Hi Push,
 
Correct, that's why I asked Figgie the second question of how he maintained fairness.  Like I said, one umpire checking could be a 240 lb bodybuilder.  Good for LP players because he will probably apply more pressure as he rubs the ball on the pips.  On the other hand, you might have an umpire that is 90 lbs and won't apply so much.  Then the ball will slide more of course.  And you can have different umpires in between with varying pressures.  So that's why I asked.



The USATT never devised a legal "friction" test of any kind for their umpires to perform on any rubber surface.  I don't know why any umpire would invent his/her own test.
Back to Top
roundrobin View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/02/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3565
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote roundrobin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/10/2009 at 8:11pm
Since the frictionless pips ban, I have played in eight USATT-sanctioned tournaments in the West Coast, including the NATT Tour Finals this year.  I have never encountered an umpire or referee that asked me to submit my long pips to his/her "friction" test, including semis and final matches with score keeper and umpire present.   Pushblocker played in many USATT-sanctioned East Coast tournaments during this period as well, so I am sure he could tell us he's ever encountered one...
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1161
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/11/2009 at 8:06am
Originally posted by figgie figgie wrote:

Originally posted by BeaverMD BeaverMD wrote:

Hi Push,
 
Correct, that's why I asked Figgie the second question of how he maintained fairness.  Like I said, one umpire checking could be a 240 lb bodybuilder.  Good for LP players because he will probably apply more pressure as he rubs the ball on the pips.  On the other hand, you might have an umpire that is 90 lbs and won't apply so much.  Then the ball will slide more of course.  And you can have different umpires in between with varying pressures.  So that's why I asked.
 
i'll address this now that I am off work.
 
table tennis balls have a standard weight of 2.7 grams, minus .3 grams or plus .7 grams deviation allowance. There is zero need to exhert any more force than the mass/weight of the ball produces to test LP (that is how you keep repeatability) After all what the test is doing is test the sliding coefficent of friction. So what this means, 400 lbs person or 110 lbs person, the force is being exherted by the mass of the ball NOT the person.
 
Simple newtonian physics (particularly Law numero uno) dictates that an object at rest (or in motion) will tend to stay at rest (or in motion) until an external force is applied.
 
Guess what, frictionless LP provide negligible force on the ball so the outcome is that the "ball barely moves" when placed on the paddle and the paddle moved in a 2 dimensional plane. Try that with short pips and the ball does move around conciderably (from the increase in friction). Even "anti" spin rubber imparts a force on the ball and it does move (there by complying with newtons law numero uno and not defying it).
 
So there is the "objectiveness" which is based on sound physics and particulalrly two equations
 
Newtons first law of motion
Dynamic Coefficent of friction
 
Friction of a long pips rubber is determined by friction of the pip tops and friction of the pip necks as they also come into play when playing as pips bend when a ball strikes the pips (especially soft pips). I know for a FACT that more pressure than just the weight of the ball is applied to test pips.. The proof of that is that HALLMARK Super Defence passed the ITTF friction test.. If you have never had a sheet of HALLMARK Super Defence in your hands, you won't know that it's tops acted completely frictionless and you would not feel any resistence on the ball if you would slide a ball over the pips. However, this rubber has very soft, easily bending pips and under little pressure, the grippy necks would come in to play. That caused the rubber to pass the ITTF test.. If the test would not have been done under pressure, there is no way that the Super Defence would've passed the test. Even though the rubber was discontinued by HALLMARK, the fact remained that it did pass the friction test. So, the friction test must have happened under pressure, higher than the balls weight. Don't forget that when blocking  hard shots (which pips are mostly used for), the pips will bend and the necks come into play...
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1161
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/11/2009 at 8:08am
Originally posted by roundrobin roundrobin wrote:

Since the frictionless pips ban, I have played in eight USATT-sanctioned tournaments in the West Coast, including the NATT Tour Finals this year.  I have never encountered an umpire or referee that asked me to submit my long pips to his/her "friction" test, including semis and final matches with score keeper and umpire present.   Pushblocker played in many USATT-sanctioned East Coast tournaments during this period as well, so I am sure he could tell us he's ever encountered one...
 
I actually did have a recent complaint about my pips and the referee inspected the pips and declared that they were legal. My opponent claimed that the pips were illegal and had too little friction. The referee inspected the rubber and checked the new list and declared my rubber to be legal.. I had a complaint about my rubber once before and the referee actually used a magnifying glass to look for any evidence of treatment but could not find any.. My opponent claimed that I put super glue on the pips.. Of course I didn't do that but as a long pips player, you get used to opponents complaining, for whatever reason or no reason at all..
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1161
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/11/2009 at 8:19am
Originally posted by roundrobin roundrobin wrote:

I'm actually into cars too.. I've got a pretty fast '68 Corvette that runs mid 9's on a 100 shot and will run 8's on the full 250 shot.. Also own other Corvettes.. I'm actually better known under "GrandSportC3". Over 141000 posts on the Corvetteforum.. That has to give me a huge e-penis LOL
My blue/white '68 is one of the fastest Independent Rear Suspension Vettes on the planet.. There are only a handful of them that are faster.
 
 
 
NHRA Competition Drivers  License 271X


Nice car Olivier!  I had a red Acura NSX for three years (bought new in '99).  Then gave it to my brother-in-law after he got married.  I think he still has it.  Before the NSX I had a red Porsche 911.

William
 
You gave away a NSX?? Wow, I'd like a brother in-law like that!! The only car that I ever gave away was my '92 Vette which I gave to my wife.. She used it as a daily driver and later we traded it for a 2001 Audi A4.. The nicest car that I've ever had was a 1991 Ferrari Testarossa with 33k original miles.. Only had that car for about a year and sold it before it needed any service.. Too expensive maintenance on those cars..
 
Here are pics of the TR: (after I installed some Ferrari 360 wheels)
 
Back to Top
figgie View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member


Joined: 01/28/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1034
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote figgie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/11/2009 at 10:08am
Originally posted by roundrobin roundrobin wrote:

 I don't know why any umpire would invent his/her own test.
who said anything about the umpire devising this test?
 
It was Kagen (think I am butchering his name),  which he does most if not all the tournaments in the US.
Speed glue, booster, tuner free since 2006!!!
Back to Top
figgie View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member


Joined: 01/28/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1034
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote figgie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/11/2009 at 10:11am
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

 I know for a FACT that more pressure than just the weight of the ball is applied to test pips
 
stop right there.
 
Under Kagen, we were strictly told not to add more weight/force of the ball than the ball itself.
 
I have not worked with any other Tournament Referee so can not confirm or deny THIER particular methods. Anyway, with the "approved" list. It is almost moot to do. ALMOST.
 
Anyweay,
 
what am I arguing,
 
frictionless or not, if it is not on the approved list. Done. If it is. Done. Simple as that.
Speed glue, booster, tuner free since 2006!!!
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1161
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/11/2009 at 10:26am
Originally posted by figgie figgie wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

 I know for a FACT that more pressure than just the weight of the ball is applied to test pips
 
stop right there.
 
Under Kagen, we were strictly told not to add more weight/force of the ball than the ball itself.
 
I have not worked with any other Tournament Referee so can not confirm or deny THIER particular methods. Anyway, with the "approved" list. It is almost moot to do. ALMOST.
 
Anyweay,
 
what am I arguing,
 
frictionless or not, if it is not on the approved list. Done. If it is. Done. Simple as that.
 
I don't know who Kagen is.. Based on the current Referee list on USATT.ORG, there is nobody with that first or last name
 
 
Again, this is not a official test.. There is not technical document that describes any tests. IF such test is actually performed, it's surely not a accurate test as for a matter of fact, the ITTF test does apply pressure.. Just ask Adham.. I agree with you on the approved list.. No doubt about that.
Back to Top
cole_ely View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/16/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4585
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cole_ely Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/11/2009 at 11:44am
Here is a picture of the ittf's friction testing machine, sent to me by odd himself when talking about prices for testing air and such. Probably everybody's seen this but I hadn't

20091211_114636_Innowep_1.jpg
W6 fl with Illumina 1.8

Please let me know if I can be of assistance.
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1161
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/11/2009 at 11:59am
Originally posted by cole_ely cole_ely wrote:

Here is a picture of the ittf's friction testing machine, sent to me by odd himself when talking about prices for testing air and such. Probably everybody's seen this but I hadn't

20091211_114636_Innowep_1.jpg
I've seen it before.. Pretty bulky machine.. I doubt that we will see that one at any tournaments LOL
 
Now, I also doubt that by sliding a ball over a rubber you'll know what friction it has.. Everything has friction as frictionless only exists in a vacuum and we don't live in a vacuum.. So, who can accurately tell friction from a simple test if in reality a complex machine is used to get those numbers..
Back to Top
figgie View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member


Joined: 01/28/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1034
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote figgie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/11/2009 at 12:19pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

 
I don't know who Kagen is.. Based on the current Referee list on USATT.ORG, there is nobody with that first or last name
 
 
Again, this is not a official test.. There is not technical document that describes any tests. IF such test is actually performed, it's surely not a accurate test as for a matter of fact, the ITTF test does apply pressure.. Just ask Adham.. I agree with you on the approved list.. No doubt about that.
 
 
I saw that, and funny thing I am not on the list either but I am a club umpire.....
 
oh well.
Speed glue, booster, tuner free since 2006!!!
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/11/2009 at 3:20pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:


I believe that Adham himself said that non ITTF sanctioned tournaments will have to rely on the list. This has also been extensively discussed with Jay Turberville who is a Referee.. He claimed that he rejected players using certain rubbers that showed evidence of treatment under a magnifying glass. However, if there is no visual evidence, he said that he would not DQ anybody as he can't objectively determine friction as there is no equipment to do that test accurately.


You are mixing a few things together.

First, I'm am umpire, not a referee.  Second, the only DQ for a racket that I've recommended and had a referee agree with had nothing to do with pips, but was some sticky goo that was applied to inverted rubber.  I think you are confusing this with a discussion where I said that I'd certainly be willing to use a loupe (which I keep for measuring rubber thickness) to check for epoxy or other items added to the tops of pips.

But I do believe that an umpire should not recommend a racket for DQ and a referee should not actually DQ a racket without objective evidence that it has been modified in a significant way or is otherwise outside the rules.


Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/11/2009 at 3:31pm
Originally posted by figgie figgie wrote:

[
 
stop right there.
 
Under Kagen, we were strictly told not to add more weight/force of the ball than the ball itself.
 
I have not worked with any other Tournament Referee so can not confirm or deny THIER particular methods. Anyway, with the "approved" list. It is almost moot to do. ALMOST.
 
Anyweay,
 
what am I arguing,
 
frictionless or not, if it is not on the approved list. Done. If it is. Done. Simple as that.


I wonder if you are talking about Kagin?  If so, he's a pretty bright and objective fellow.  He helped with the basic approach to doing the calculation on my table tennis ball speed and calculator pages.

That said, if your description is accurate, thefrictionless field test you described should, IMO, not be used.  I think Pushblocker's argument is sound.  It seems very unlikely that this test using the weight of the ball only is a reasonable duplicate of the ITTF test.  And not only that, but it doesn't replicate how the rubber might behave as regards friction when playing either.  This seems like a very poor testing scheme to me.  So poor that I expect that there is something missing in the description of this came from Kagin.
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/11/2009 at 3:40pm
Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:

 
I don't know who Kagen is.. Based on the current Referee list on USATT.ORG, there is nobody with that first or last name
 
 
Again, this is not a official test.. There is not technical document that describes any tests. IF such test is actually performed, it's surely not a accurate test as for a matter of fact, the ITTF test does apply pressure.. Just ask Adham.. I agree with you on the approved list.. No doubt about that.


I believe his name is Kagin Lee and he is a National Level Umpire and a Certified Referee.

I'm quite surprised that he would suggest this test.  The only reasonable explanations I can think of would be that the description here is incomplete or that Kagin is less familiar with long pips and their behavior than perhaps he should be.  I'd really like to hear what Kagin has to say.  It is almost always worthwhile listening to him.
 
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/11/2009 at 3:51pm
Originally posted by figgie figgie wrote:

mastermind
 
actually
 
what the leaflet does not say, is that there is a SIMPLE test that we do.
 
ball on LP. If the ball skates around without moving while the paddle is moved, no good.


BTW, there are variables here like the tilt of the racket and how fast the racket is moved back and forth, and the surface of the ball itself.  Is new with lots of powder still on it or well used?  This test is too simple IMO.  I bet I can do the test as described and not have the ball skate around on a piece of glass if I don't want it to.
 
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1161
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/11/2009 at 11:06pm
Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:

Originally posted by Pushblocker Pushblocker wrote:


I believe that Adham himself said that non ITTF sanctioned tournaments will have to rely on the list. This has also been extensively discussed with Jay Turberville who is a Referee.. He claimed that he rejected players using certain rubbers that showed evidence of treatment under a magnifying glass. However, if there is no visual evidence, he said that he would not DQ anybody as he can't objectively determine friction as there is no equipment to do that test accurately.


You are mixing a few things together.

First, I'm am umpire, not a referee.  Second, the only DQ for a racket that I've recommended and had a referee agree with had nothing to do with pips, but was some sticky goo that was applied to inverted rubber.  I think you are confusing this with a discussion where I said that I'd certainly be willing to use a loupe (which I keep for measuring rubber thickness) to check for epoxy or other items added to the tops of pips.

But I do believe that an umpire should not recommend a racket for DQ and a referee should not actually DQ a racket without objective evidence that it has been modified in a significant way or is otherwise outside the rules.


Ok, I mixed things up a little bit but basically we are in agreement.. No objective test = no Disqualification..  Once subjective testing would be allowed, there could be plenty of unfair rulings.. You could theoretically claim that a rubber was glued because it sounds like glued.. If there's no ENEZ, there's no objective test and theoritically, a referee could DQ somebody based on how the rubber sounds or acts..  Where would it stops.. If ITTF or USATT comes up with a reliable way to test rackets, pimples or inverted for modified properties, I fully agree that it should be enforced. However, without objective testing and no visual evidence of rubber alteration, the list should be the ultimate criteria for rubber approval.
Back to Top
Pushblocker View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/09/2009
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 1161
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pushblocker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12/11/2009 at 11:11pm
Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:

Originally posted by figgie figgie wrote:

mastermind
 
actually
 
what the leaflet does not say, is that there is a SIMPLE test that we do.
 
ball on LP. If the ball skates around without moving while the paddle is moved, no good.


BTW, there are variables here like the tilt of the racket and how fast the racket is moved back and forth, and the surface of the ball itself.  Is new with lots of powder still on it or well used?  This test is too simple IMO.  I bet I can do the test as described and not have the ball skate around on a piece of glass if I don't want it to.
 
You bring up a good point.. A well worn ball will show less friction than a brand new one..  It's actually a pretty big difference..
As a long pips player, the only thing that I'm asking (as also many other long pips players) is that our rackets are objectively tested and if they fail a objective test, I doubt that anybody would disagree with a disqualification in that case. As long pips player I'm used to opponents complaining about my equipment and the same thing happens to almost all long pips players..  Many players hate playing against us and try to blame it on our equipment..
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.186 seconds.
Mark all posts as read :: Delete cookies set by this forum

Cookies and JavaScript must be enabled on your web browser in order to use this forum


Copyright © 2003-2013 MyTableTennis.NET - All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer