Which ball should our club buy to test?

Don't know why but I see no significant reduction of spin many talk about with the new DHS/DF balls. Actually I have a hard time returning short and strong backspin serves and always end up to the net. Also blocking of top spin keep overshooting off the table. Going back to celluloid and things are back to normal. No such problem with Palio/XSF seamless either. I believe the reduction of spin is obvious with seamless but not quite with seamed new balls. Might need a new set of technique to suit them. Will see in more practice.

hithithit wrote:   blahblahblah...

NextLevel wrote: hithithit wrote:   <span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;">blahblahblah..</span><span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;">.</span> <span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;"> </span> <span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;"> </span> <span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;"> </span> <span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;">Most of your points agree with me, but are written in ways that make it sound like you are disagreeing with me.  If the offensive player can generate more difficult shots to defend with one kind of ball, the practice is better for the player who is defending against those shots.  Hence the cellular ball favors the looper and the plastic ball favors the defender in match play, but in practice, the cellular ball gives the defender/blocker better/more difficult practice and the plastic ball gives the looper/server more challenge. </span> <span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;"> </span> <span style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.4;">There's no need to write epistles that sound like you don't agree when you largely do.  When you don't, it is because your logic is flawed and you aren't being consistent (the plastic ball is harder to generate heavy topspin with so I don't know how you can conclude that it is easier to loop - you probably mean it is easier to do a basic topspin return, but that is not quite the same thing as being able to generate heavy topspin).</span>

Ooh, I can see why it might have contracted itself, I left a word out. I was meant to say looping is easier because of the less spin in oncoming shots. For example, looping a flat heavy underspin. Remember, it takes 2 to tango. What makes a shot harder to achieve is the type of ball you are facing. The plastic balls are easier to face due to lesser spin and speed... This why I still prefer celluloid balls for training.

I can still generate heavy top spins with the plastic balls but it is relatively weaker compared with the celluloid balls, though I am yet to use the new 40+ rubbers.

But as I was saying too:
1) celluloid balls still have benefits over plastic balls. Faster and more spinny oncoming balls.
2) if your tournament uses plastic balls only then you might want to focus on plastic balls, though keep point 1 in mind.

rliu wrote: EVERYONE wait for the Nittaku Made in Japan Ball. It is VERY similar to the current ball because I have tried it. The ball is pretty good and won't make huge differences. It hasen't come out yet but it should be worth it.

Based on the physics of the situation, a ball that is slightly larger than the current celluloid will have to play somewhat differently (as we see with Chinese poly-balls).  It will have to be slower and less spinny.  Hopefully the Nittaku ones will have better durability, but make no mistake, they will not be cheap, and there will still be some adjustment.  Some people will like the new balls better, some people will really hate them.  It is still the same sport, but the ball moves and bounces differently.

TurboZ wrote: Initial test of Nittaku Premium 40+ balls said that it actually bounce higher than celluloid and seems unbreakable. 2 opposite characteristics of current DHS's weakness. Major gripe for me is the lower than normal bounce and reluctant to go forward. More so with 1 star DHS. If Nittaku's final product is that good then I am willing to pay more. Too bad DHS is already close to $2 each, I am afraid Nittaku premium could hit $3 or more a piece. Can't imagine my reaction if someone step on it!

Higher bounce is fine.  It will still spin lesst and travel differently through the air, as with current DHS ball, and ITTF specs for the new ball mean it will also be heavier than current celluloid.  Of course, greater durability would be a good thing.  For sure it will cost more.  Nittaku has always cost more.

I checked six of the new Joola 40+ balls in my laboratory using calipers and an analytical balance late last week.  5/6 meet the 2016 specs (barely, they were all barely at the high end of that range), and one was heavier even then current amended specs allow.  So, maybe not so much change coming after 2016.  Interestingly, all of the DHS celluloid balls I weighed were under current spec weight for celluloid.  The balance I used is calibrated yearly and we use it for weighing milligram quantities of substances.  The other stuff (roundness, hardness, etc.) I can't measure.  But as much as I really do not like the rule change, I think that our current experience with these balls will not change that much after Jan 2016.  At least I hope not.  Again, I know there is no impending worldwide ban on celluloid, and I suspect the motives behind the change, but now in practical terms I am trying to figure out some practical things going forward, like when to start playing exclusively with the new ones, since I am guessing in the not too distant future newly made celluloid balls will cease to exist. 

Baal wrote: I think that our current experience with these balls will not change that much after Jan 2016.

Well, it will for the simple reason that different specifications mean different balls. Since the specifications after 01.01.2016 will be automatically different, the new new balls will be different as well.

NextLevel wrote: Well, whatever the new balls are like, we are going to play with them, no matter how good or bad or ugly they are.

I do not think so. The example of Germany shows that almost 100% will play with celluloid balls.

It is possible that the plastic ball swindle will be gone next year.

skip3119 wrote: When all ITTF sanctioned tournaments switch to plastic balls - beginning in 2015, the rest of the world will gradually follow.

The date is not 2015, it is 2014. Secondly, the example of Germany shows the opposite, as I said.
Thirdly, there is no legal reason for the ITTF sanctioned tournaments to switch to plastic balls, because the ITTF rule states: "3.02.01.02   ...the choice of equipment shall be as laid down by the Association in whose territory the competition is held, selected from brands and types currently approved by the ITTF."

The Association in whose territory the competition is held can, of course, be blackmailed or bribed or whatever to choose a plastic ball despite celluloid ball being legal, but nevertheless plastic balls remain very unpopular, which gives hope that the plastic ball swindle will be gone next year.

NextLevel wrote: ...but once the Pros use the balls, there will be nothing left to discuss unless the balls behave so terribly that they cannot be used.  No one has decried the latest set of balls that much

There have been enough reports describing plastic ball as bad, so they are terrible enough, if you wish to use the term terrible.

Note that plastic ball are known for a very long time and failed twice, in 1970s and in 1980s. The Pros can be forced to use them one way or another, right, but the overall failure will lead to the end of the plastic ball swindle. The clever trick to allow "better" plastic balls temporarily will not help, people are not that stupid.


Edited by Mastermind - 07/27/2014 at 2:44pm

NextLevel wrote: By and large, the reviews on the latest balls have been positive

There has been a lot of guerrilla marketing on the forums lately.

NextLevel wrote: The Chinese team has used the balls in practice and is adapting its players to it.

You can use a potato and adapt to it. The point is that where the people can choose the ball free, they choose celluloid. As I said, e.g. Germany.

Today I played with made in Japan Nittaku 40+ ball (Jim Butler had one).  It is much much much better than the Joola or the XSF ball.  Bounce is identical to a Nittaku regular ball.  Still slightly slower and less spinny than current celluloid balls, but a big improvement over the 40+ balls I had tried before this during the last week.  That is the brand that I hope becomes the standard.  As things stand now, their product is clearly superior. 

By the way, IMHO, the XSF ball is a joke.  Nobody will want to use that one. 

As for guerrilla marketing (if I can guess what this is supposed to mean) I think I have been as outspoken in opposition to these new balls as anyone on this forum, and nobody pays me for what I write.  Of course nobody gives a crap what I have to say either.  The world continues to change in many ways no matter what I think.

Realistically, we need to move on now. 

@Baal,

How long did you play for?

I am assuming the Nittaku Made In Japan ball did not break during play, did Jim tell you how durable they are?

I am just looking for some light in the tunnel, the DHS 3 star poly balls just don't last.

@Baal,

Ok thanks. The poly ball I had broke in just about 30 minutes of use. I think the trigger was largely because of me smacking it flat onto the net post once when I tried a swerving curve shot, as a few shots after there was a massive explosion sound when my hitting partner did a drive. To ensure this wasn't an isolated incident, I followed up with various friends whom I gave a poly ball each to, and they too said theirs had broke and did not last long.

Otherwise, awesome ball to play with.

Edited by hithithit - 07/27/2014 at 10:35pm