http://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=25304" rel="nofollow - http://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=25304

Does the balls have red lettering or black?  The red lettered ones are not the ITTF approved balls.  The black lettered ones are ITTF approved. 

 

 

 

http://www.ittf.com/ittf_equipment/Balls_details.asp?ID=7256" rel="nofollow - http://www.ittf.com/ittf_equipment/Balls_details.asp?ID=7256

 

Touch shots were tricky and the ball reacts oddly at times, particularly at very slow speeds. The hardest thing to get used to was watching the opponent's stroke and then preparing for a return, as you do, based on the speed of the stroke and finding that there far less pace and spin on the ball than the stroke would indicate.  

I was against the change from the start, but wasn't as put off by the Palio as I thought I'd be.  All in all, better than I expected and yes, the rallies did last somewhat longer. 

NOT THAT BAD AT ALL!

They feel harder and heavier and the rubbers feel softer now. I enjoy that. It is much easier to get dwell inside the sponge. 

The bounce was the same when I tested them, maybe a tiny difference after they bounce 10 times. The ball seems to be higher above the table when u start playing but that is because the balls are extremely rough and grippy so the rubber just throws the ball higher.

Sound is different but now like a cracked ball. More like a glass or very hard plastic. I can see how I can get used to that in a week. 

All in all, I am very happy with the new balls. They are easier to play with. I can feel myself how it is easier to keep the rally going with this ball. It is grippy, a little slower, easier to initiate attack but easier to defend from attacks as well. 

Another side effect - the nastyness of illegal serves is greatly reduced. I can see how a lot of people who relied on illegal serve + 3rd ball kill will lose points with the new ball. With the new ball, you will have to rally your way out of a point, no more tricks. 

Still have no clue how it will affect pips. On one hand, LP will not be as deceptive any more, will be much easier to read. On the other, the defenders will be able to reach absolutely everything now. Those rallies against a quality defender may become TOO LONG because attacking player will make less errors but defender will have more time to reach the ball.

As for chinese national team -- lets be honest, they don't care. Listen to their feedback - they don't praise the ball, they don't complain either, they don't give a sh1t. How will you win a point against ZJK with the new ball now is something we will have to see. 

so I know this has been posted elsewhere I just want your information correct

regardless that excerpt is very helpful, because there's a lot of confusion surrounding the new balls. 

they want to sell new blades and breaking the 100$ a rubber sheet barrier

Are you sure you are not just automatically complaining about everything without even considering the real effects? Because in my opinion if ITTF had instead decreased the ball size and make it more spiny and fast, you would post the exact same comment, only this time you would say it is dummed down because you don't need to use strategy any more and you can just rip it through the middle and win the point. As long as you don't restrict yourself with logic, any argument can be used for any conclusion u want. 

Another side effect - the nastyness of illegal serves is greatly reduced. I can see how a lot of people who relied on illegal serve + 3rd ball kill will lose points with the new ball. With the new ball, you will have to rally your way out of a point, no more tricks.

Agree 100%. From my tests, all the points are now decided at mid distance. Because from close to table you cannot kill (or it's not convenient). Unless the Liu Guoliang style makes a comeback.

More in general: with the new ball you will have to choose: if you want to play close to table, you will need two short pips. If you want to use inverted, you will have to play mid distance. That's my guess. Players with one pip and one inverted with suffer.

 the defenders will be able to reach absolutely everything now.

+1 . I think we are underestimating this factor. I don't see Ma Long and the rest beating Joo Sae Hyuk or Masato easily anymore.

Also, from my tests, when chopping you lose much less spin than you lose in pushing.

  Would it be too much to ask for some objective evidence for this statement?  Any empirical data?  Any articles published in respectable journals supporting this allegation?

I think he's just making the general connection between having to exert more physical power to get a similar result if you take a slow setup compared to a fast setup when attacking. 

More physical exertion-> more injury risk. This line I don't think anyone can argue against. 

I think this is much more applicable to the average player though, and not the pros. 

What ball are you describing? DHS, Palio please be specific also  what  formula is being used for any of the new plastic balls? What is your source?

Your definition of fact seems to be pretty loose. If a study is demonstrating a potential increase in likelihood, that does not mean FACT. You're making the assumption too! An assumption that the studies you stand by were done correctly. What if a monkey did those studies? Show me proof that a monkey didn't do those surveys. Show me proof he wasn't wearing a blindfold at the time. I demand the data! 

 I've also recently heard "studies" of the same things. However, every time I've ever heard them it's simply cited and discussed. The data is not included. I can watch discovery news, too. You mention empirical research, but I haven't seen it. Do you have a link to all of this compiled data? Not that I really care, you're just trolling. I'm sure it's out there, just like any other topic of interest that has backing on both sides of the debate but will never ever come to a proven conclusion. 

I've also heard about the studies done on studies themselves, citing how grossly inaccurate they are half the time. The simple word "studies" can impact the potential to believe something greatly for lots of people. But I'm not going to take the time to find any evidence to appease your demands, because I'm not going to feed you the satisfaction of knowing you forced effort out of someone for an internet debate, which is all you really want. Granted I guess you've won anyway because I ended up typing a lot. 

Stretching before an activity is easy to make a case either way because it's a separate activity from what you are stretching for. Maybe those peoples risk for injury was greater after stretching because they over-exerted themselves  Pushing yourself too hard causing injury is an easy one because the injury happens when you are in the process over-exerting yourself. Maybe if I said something more along the lines of your  "Over-exertion repeatedly over time can potentially raise your likelihood for an injury" you'd be more pleased. Who knows, but you can tell the kid at my club that swings his shoulder out of its socket because he's trying to hit so hard that he's a scientific anomaly. I prefer to just tell him to take a chill pill. Make sure you also tell my room mate that him throwing his back out while trying to squat too much at the gym last night after not being in the gym for two weeks that it was all a big coincidence. Bruce Lee was hospitalized for putting too much weight on doing a "Good Morning", with no warm-up might I add. That kind of stuff is shown directly in the form of happening to people all the time. It's like you being my barber, and telling me that I can't prove this hair belongs to me after you cut it off. 

You're one hundred percent right that studies themselves have to be reliable, i.e. performed according to rigorous scientific method with all the appropriate controls and removal of biases (you might have seen where I called MrRicharD from Joola on his so-called "reviews" because of their obvious bias).  I agree that studies done by monkeys (as distinct from studies done on monkeys) are less than useful; they're positively harmful.  

Out of interest, the major study comparing injury rates in stretching and non-stretching populations comes from the US Army, with large scale data on recruits in basic training.  Data on foot injuries comes from a variety of sources, ranging from anecdotal evidence from Vin Lannana (head coach at Stanford University) to hard data compiled by Craig Richards from the University of Newcastle, Australia and published in a 2008 research paper for the British Journal of Sports Medicine.  Obviously well qualified monkeys.

And BTW, I'm not trolling.  I'm just looking for sensible comment rather than people just making stuff up.  

 

I am a believer in dynamic stretching and progressive warm-up using dynamic whole body movements. I deliberately shun static stretching BEFORE physical activity without dynamic movement, it not only doesn't work, it impairs performance. Stretching when all is said and done is fine and dandy, but doing just static stretching before decisively going live and heavy is just asking for it.

Anyway if you really want specifics, in that video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3HThZptd_c" rel="nofollow - link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3HThZptd_c" rel="nofollow -   above which is jike vs fan's first match, at only halfway of the match @ frame 04:00 ... the ball they use broke.

I think the most important characteristic of the balls from Palio I got is their ROUGHNESS. I am telling you, material and size do not actually matter. This roughness... I think there is heavy friction in the air and reduces spin quickly and also bites the table surface which kind of kills the spin after two bounces. 

Like I said, the ball does not appear to be bouncier than the regular ball with a normal bounce test. And yet, in game the ball is definitely higher than where the normal ball would be. That, combined with the incredible grip that the roughness provides, make virtually any ball liftable with banana opening. Let me tell you about the grip of this new ball. I have these two year old rubber on my return boards. Those of you who have return boards know what the rubber on a return board is like. It is worse than anti, it is completely gripless. And yet, the ball seems to bite even into the rubber of my return boards, and the returns come very high. Also, my home practice paddle has some 2yr old tenzone in it.. very worn out but my return boards dont give me backspin so they good enough for that, well that tenzone bites and lifts the ball like a brand new rubber. I can see how with a ball this rough you don't need to replace your rubber as often. Forget about humidity problems with this thing!

On the other hand.. the people with the anti and the long pips -- they will definitely be unpleasantly surprised. This ball just bites too much. I think it will bite even in the anti rubber and will render it useless. Maybe they will come up with new ways to create confusing balls, don't know, but spin reversal will be very problematic with current equipment and new ball. I can see how this was designed by Sharara's request. 

 you made  a statement  regarding the new plastic balls make up, just thought you knew something and had some background but it seems that you don't.

when exposed to oxygen or air.

Man... go tell that to the ITTF.

Now, since you know about those percentages, why not point that out to ITTF and give us a justifiable reason what made them change the ball base on the celluloid as being flammable. That statement did not come from me. Though I agree 100 percent to it, it is not a justifiable reason to make such a change. 

Proof read what you read, for if we are not aware of what's the real deal, yup you're surely right MAN we could burn to bankruptcy at any moment. So, Go tell that to ITTF for they are making it official on July 1, before it's too late and that 78% compound of yours might just blow us all up in space if we don't.

So, be the Man... 

a table tennis ball cannot self ignite so why are we talking about it?