Classic Rubbers vs. Modern Rubbers

Hmmm, I don't know about you.  But with classic rubbers such Mark V, Sriver EL, Mendo, etc.  I can put plenty of spin without any problems.

As a matter of fact, I have not played for almost a year now (actively) and few days ago, I had the opportunity to play a guy with carbon blade + Acuda S1 and guess what, with All+ blade and classic rubbers, I can outspeed and outspin him.

Mark V, Sriver, and Mendo are classic rubbers which are good for beginner to intermediate players.  So your primorac Off- with those rubbers are OK.
 

Assidious. You misunderstand. Classic rubbers need glue for HIGH LEVEL PLAY.

But being an american, even euro club players around US1900 seem like high level play ;)

I agree that some of the tensors are much easier to loop with, but if you can't chop with classics, that's more technique stuff.

where I think you are confused is that the difference of opinion stems from players of varying strengths.from 1100 "power loopers" to classically coached city league players from europe.

What's your rating or approximate level?

assiduous wrote: At least someone else agrees that those overrated Sriver and Mark V are dead without speed glue. You know, it hurts me a little when someone comes here for advice and you people recommend this obviously below par old rubber, that on top of everything costs a ton. I would bet a dime that not one of the people that recommend them actually play with them.    I don't agree that it's easier to learn with dead rubber AT ALL. Try backhand loop of a chopped ball. New rubber can make a world of difference. I own a near new Sriver FX and you need to swing-dislocate-your-shoulder to loop a good chop. All of the 33$ rubbers on ttnpp from Donic, Andro, Xiom do this significantly easier, and DO encourage you to try this shot more often.

 

If you want a slow rubber then why not just spend $8 and get a LKT Pro XP instead?  I don't understand the need to spend $30 bucks on something like the Sriver.  Heck, even the Flextra costs like $20, that's just robbery.

dingyibvs wrote: If you want a slow rubber then why not just spend $8 and get a LKT Pro XP instead?  I don't understand the need to spend $30 bucks on something like the Sriver.  Heck, even the Flextra costs like $20, that's just robbery.

dingyibvs wrote:   I find it ridiculous that the Sriver is being recommended by anyone to anyone.

assiduous wrote: dingyibvs wrote:   I find it ridiculous that the Sriver is being recommended by anyone to anyone. Amen! I mean, if Sriver had gone down to 15 bucks today, fine, go sweat yourself with it. It's like jogging with dumbels - some people enjoy it. But when you have all these nice rubbers in the same price range and turn them all down for a Sriver?  Also, my BH loop is perfect, thank you very much. Perhaps exactly due to the fact that I never played a rubber that will hold me back.

I bought my sriver EL and FX for $15 per rubber. I'm using it on Primorac Carbon and can tell you, that they create really a crazy spin during the play (also for serve).

Today was playing with a guy with Primorac Carbon with new rubbers- both of the blades are very much spinny and no one could say that his bat created more spin than mine.

So it's the meter of confidence of every single player which rubber he would use.

$30+ rubbers win you matches, didn't you all know that?

Perhaps you think you have a perfect BH loop because that's what your Tenergy told you?

For any new player coming out of the basement and getting serious about the sport, I recommend classics when they are learning strokes (starting with thin sponges, adding more as they develop a loop).

Why? Because these rubbers are time tested and provide very accurate feedback for the user.

They encourage players to use better technique; i.e. bad technique is not rewarded, and sometimes is punished.

Modern rubbers enable high quality shots (in terms of speed and spin) with absolutely horrible technique. This might be fine for matches, when you are out of position because your opponent is smart, but it's pretty craptacular for drilling, as it encourages players to have a myriad of strokes to produce similar quality results.

For the record, I don't want to come across as a complete hypocrite when it comes to "what I recommend" versus "what I play with". I write this screed as someone who EJ'd BH rubbers for the first few years, finally setting on Mark V/Mendo for over 4 years. I think those rubbers helped out tremendously in teaching me the difference between brushing the ball and using the sponge. They gave me a good feel for incoming spin as well and and are a big part of the reason why my BH serve, push and BH mid distance topspin are stronger and more consistent than the rest of my game. They rewarded good habits, and made drilling those strokes more informative.

But I have used Acuda S3 for over a year, in no small part because my table tennis schedule went from 2-3 days a week (with a day of drilling) to 1-2 days a week (mostly gameplay). I wanted to remain competitive and S3 offered extra spin with easy control. Compared to these classics, it's more forgiving for looping (but less linear, and less precise) and it's easier to create high spin and high variation serves. But switching to S3 meant giving up a consistent BH chop. It was the first modern rubber I found that does most of what classic rubbers are capable of allround, while giving a great "glue feel".

pnachtwey wrote: I agree that Sriver and Mark V are over rated especially when one considers the price. There are plenty of cheap $14 Chinese rubbers that are just as good or better for lower level play. The benefit of using cheaper rubbers is that you can try more of them.

Define benefit please?

Trying more rubbers just slows development as precious time and energy that could be spent working on fundamentals is instead spent adjusting strokes to suit various rubber.

I really don't take issue with players who have sound fundamentals doing a bit of EJing; but for developing U800-1100 players, it's really bad advice to go "try a bunch of different rubbers".

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.

Besides technicque and skill for "generating you,re own spin and speed" (without needing too much time) I,ve also played with/ seen setups where the gluebound, rubber to blade, was far from optimal.
Rubbers with a high resilience can use energy that,s allready in the game more effective.  For that part the gluebound is not too critical because it allows to play "light" with not much impact on the gluebound.

Classic rubbers need a more active approach for generating spin and (not for flathitting) the gluebound as a connecting layer between the player and the rubber is a link in the chain. If that link is relatively weak ....

As sponges are typically porous for big part of the surface, the glue, when it dries, tends to sink in and disappear in the pores. The effective connecting surface area becomes much less ; it,s like gluing air.



Edited by mercuur - 10/18/2011 at 5:24pm

assiduous wrote: 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. 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.

king_pong wrote: ttennis1 wrote: Although got the Flextra by removing it off a pre-made paddle! That was tuned Flextra.  ;)

@king_pong,

You bet, when my opponents with Mark-V / Srivers et al receive a real good spiny ball they are taken by surprise!

It does lack in speed, but then again this is the main purpose of a starting rubber like Flextra!

That said, all of the other players in this city at or above that level (there are several) use more modern rubbers, mostly Tenergy in one form or another.   

JBurn244 wrote: $30+ rubbers win you matches, didn't you all know that?

duh

too bad no one told the best player at this military post I'm at. He will only use a worn out house paddle (which was only a $3 paddle when it was new). He's won approximately 19 of the last 20 tournaments here. The guy could dig out a brush loop with a piece of notebook paper. And just when you think you're going to outpace him with some counterloops at mid distance, he drop shots the ball to perfection. A couple nights ago I met him in the final match. He got me 21-19, 21-17 (no one got the memo here about 11 point games).

eh, just thought I'd ramble a bit...

while I'm at it, there's another guy here with a $370 setup (T05 and Innerforce ZLC). We've played probably 20-30 times. The one time he beat me, he didn't have his paddle with him and was using a house paddle (if I would have cared to play seriously, I would have won that too... but I think I enjoyed the irony).

now.... what were we talking about again?