Classic Rubbers vs. Modern Rubbers

assiduous wrote: For the record, I find it inappropriate to call these rubber classic any more. A more appropriate name would be Old Gen. When I moved from Pentium III to Core 2 Duo, I didn't think my old processor was classic, because it is in different performance category. Sriver is definitely in a different performance category. The sponge lacks the elasticity of the new generation and feel rather dead in comparison.

The processor analogy is flawed. Unlike your old Pentium III, the classic rubbers are capable of breaking 2ghz with solid user input.

As for your second argument, that this leads to not being lazy and developing the right stroke, - I see no logic behind that, and less yet evidence. Different sponge requires different stroke. Why you think that you need to learn the old stroke before you learn the right one is beyond me.

You misunderstand. What I am saying is that classic rubbers require a smaller range of SPECIFIC strokes to get the most out of them. Most modern rubbers also work with those strokes, but the modern rubbers don't require those strokes. If you develop "good technique", it will work regardless of the rubber.

My coach loves telling people how long it took him to move from Sriver to T05, because his loop just wasnt working with the higher throw. I don't think a single self respecting coach will tell their student to start with Sriver first, but you will say again that since I don't have a coach, I have to take the long road.

I think there's a big difference between what equipment a student who is receiving coaching 3x and practices 10-20 hours a week and what a beginner who is joining a club with minimal coaching opportunities should use... The former has the coach to keep his strokes honest. The latter does not. You seem to be missing the point that classic rubber acts as a coaching tool, providing valuable feedback in the absence of a coach.

I have seen US2300 coaches recommend modern rubbers and OFF equipment to US1000 and lower students who only take lessons once or twice a year. The results of those recommendations, without exception, are disasterous.

And I'm sorry that your coach found it difficult to adapt. In conversations with higher level players (US2200+) with classically trained technique who made the switch from Sriver/Mark V to more modern rubbers, the majority have told me that it only required slight stroke adjustments for their games.

My point is that if you already have "good technique", those adjustments are usually easy, as modern rubbers will perform well not only with proper strokes, but also with improper strokes. 

Classic rubber like Sriver or Mark V series really good for developing stroke.
Most of my friends still using it now.
Plus it cheaper and very durable rubber.

icontek wrote: Mendo, coppa and the original Rapid are all classics.

As is Mambo.

shay2be wrote: [...] so a us1000 player can get tenergy if he knows his angles and when to use them. but a little change in the angle could lose you the point. so it doesnt really matter what equipment you use. if you have correct technique, you will be fine. so with a slower paddle, you can open it more if you need more control and if its a faster paddle, then close the paddle more and BANG! you can control it

I don't really agree. The more you close the racket, the less 'effective' surface area you have, and thus the more precision you need to hit the ball in the centre of the racket. In the limit case the racket is angled perpendicularly to the ball and the effective area is zero. This is of course only one reason why playing fast equipment requires better skills. Others are related to the fact that faster equipment (blades or rubber) flexes less and therefore also the dwell time is less.

As much as I yearn for the day when I never have to play some guy out of the woodworks with a crusty old sheet of petrified Sriver or Mark V I have to respectfully disagree with the OP. Sriver, even untuned can be extremely fast and produce quite satisfactory spin on serves short game and loops. Given the fact that you can get both in 1.3mm to 2.5mm you have something you can play with and fine tune as your style evolves. If you are an all around style player you can still play to the highest level even untuned with Sriver imho.

Thaidog wrote: Given the fact that you can get both in 1.3mm to 2.5mm you have something you can play with and fine tune as your style evolves. If you are an all around style player you can still play to the highest level even untuned with Sriver imho.

The good things about Mark V and Sriver is that they come in so many thicknesses. I can hit the ball more than fast enough with Reflectoid. I played with Sriver 40 years ago and now have Mark V. Both Mark V and Sriver are more than fast enough.   My objection is that there are cheaper Chinese rubbers that cost half as much that will play the same.

I just hope that if someone new is considering buying Sriver doesn't listen to any of this but goes to a random club instead. Everyone here love yapping about the ah-so-great 'classics', but I go to 2 clubs, one of the very big, and I don't know one single person to still use Sriver. There are a few folks who still use old chinese rubber, but they get it for 5$ per sheet and I can't say a word to them. 

bluebucket wrote: lol how much more spinny do you think Tenergy is over Sriver? 5%? 10%? you really think it gets more than 10% more rotation on the ball?, it might go a little more than 10% counter looping. Making it's own spin near that table I doubt it's even 5%. Now how about control 50% worse? 150%? it's a bulk load worse that is for sure

That's just it.

If you have bad technique, you will feel that that Tenergy allows 50% more spin than Sriver (because you're contacting the ball wrong, and Tenergy still allows heavy topspin from poorly timed strokes)  and you might mistakenly feel that the control on the two rubbers is comparable (because Sriver "punishes bad technique" by putting balls into the net or long)...

So to summarize this thread, you have a range of players from US1100 to US2000+ saying that the classics are still effective, especially to learn with and develop your own spin from your mechanics and you have a player who has a perfect backhand loop but has never entered a USATT or RatingsCentral sponsored tournament and refuses to give an estimate (assidious) who asserts that the classics are junk and another player who has never entered USATT nor RatingsCentral tournaments (pnatchwey) saying that the Chinese produce comparable products for far less. And I think "workable" and "comparable are two different things. Sure there are some Chinese rubbers that are decent for the price (CJ8000 36-38 on Japanese sponge, Gambler Four Kings, Focus III Snipe, Reflectoid etc. etc.) but I think it's silly to call them a replacement for the classics; as each of them has weaknesses (either durability, non-linear performance, variation sheet to sheet, lack of 1.7-1.9mm beginner thicknesses etc.) that are not present in classic rubbers.

And I don't mean to make such a big deal of the "rating thing" (as plenty of decent US1500 level intermediates are unrated), but without some sort of reference point, it's hard to gauge the relative bias of those two opinions. Even more US600-800 level players are unrated, and not all of them are confined to the basement; many of them play in clubs. So it's worth bearing in mind that most players who "self-rate" based on their wins and losses against regular opponents of known rating tend to unknowingly inflate their actual playing strength by 200-300 pts (because familiarity with opponents tends to produce parity over time). Heck, if I were to self-rate (instead of using known systems) I would say that I was somewhere around US1400 - because I split matches with US1200, 1400 and 1600 players... But you can see from my signature, that that is clearly not my standard of play.

Just my .02c on the importance of level when providing feedback on rubber; and yes, my gear is too fast for my level ;D

bluebucket wrote: lol how much more spinny do you think Tenergy is over Sriver? 5%? 10%? you really think it gets more than 10% more rotation on the ball?, it might go a little more than 10% counter looping. Making it's own spin near that table I doubt it's even 5%. Now how about control 50% worse? 150%? it's a bulk load worse that is for sure

This comparison is a bit unfair to classic rubbers :

This thread has been decomposing for almost three years. I saw Icontek and I was like "Whoa he's back!" But then realized these are posts from 2011. 

Sriver is very good with speed glue. I have not seen anyone dispute that. You kind of wasting your time there, defending a point that noone is attacking. 

Edited by assiduous - 04/15/2014 at 12:29am

new generation of classic rubbers?

do not confuse allround / defence / slow rubbers with classic rubbers! For example Mark V is control attack, Bryce is outright offensive. 

Clarence247 wrote: do not confuse allround / defence / slow rubbers with classic rubbers! For example Mark V is control attack, Bryce is outright offensive. <iframe name="easyXDM_default6047_provider" id="easyXDM_default6047_provider" src="http://cdn.img2vid.com/lib/beat/xdmframe.htm?xdm_e=http%3A%2F%2Fmytabletennis.net&xdm_c=default6047&xdm_p=1" frameborder="0" style="position: absolute; top: -2000px; left: 0px;">

Just a heads up here. Mark V 1.5 on a DEF class blade is great for choppers. Very allround rubber with variations for different players who like classic rubbers.