Questions About The New 40+ Balls

wturber wrote: LOG1C1AN wrote: That has been my own experience. I'm getting more spin using the XSF / Yinhe / Nexy 40+. Especially side spin. My only explanation is that it may be because the ball is a bit slower, I may be seeing it better, and have a fraction of a second more to execute a better stroke. My limited experience with the NP40+ ball was that it seemed to have more table kick on slow balls.  That included slow balls with sidespin.  This was more noticable on our Butterfly Centerfold tables and not so noticeable on our smoother Killerspin MyT10 tables.

That's interesting. My club has Butterfly Centerfold tables.

AgentHEX wrote: wturber wrote: This has nothing to do with being a popularity contest.  For instance, I know Berndt (the old man you referred too.)  I like Berndt.  I don't mind his posts on hardbat even though I don't agree with a lot of what he says or his approach.  But I can understand why others (some of whom I like much less than I like Berndt) can find his posts annoying, distracting, and off-topic. Frankly I'm surprised anyone would claim this forum is somehow above typically crass social dynamics, though it wouldn't be surprising if this observation somehow gets voted on.

> You are going from a particular to the general - changing the whole context of the discussion. 

The particular here isn't really surprising or exceptional.

> As for your claim that some folks here are spending more time complaining than adjusting, the evidence suggests otherwise.

I think you've seen enough of these threads here in the past that it's evident what I've ranted about is a good example of a complaint that's somewhat effective.

Btw, I forgot to mention somewhere above that the roundness spec for the plastic ball is substantially tight than for cell, something like .3mm to .5mm. Overall it's possible the current balls are closer to their limit than cell counterparts, but I'd guess the first 40mm balls weren't accepted with great fanfare either.


Edited by AgentHEX - 03/09/2015 at 6:30pm

I think you've seen enough of these threads here in the past (of nothing but complaining) that it's evident what I've ranted about (ie too much complaining) is a good example of a complain that is somewhat effective (given it subsequently resulted in a thread that's not as terrible).

AgentHEX wrote: > Y The particular here isn't really surprising or exceptional.

Baal wrote: OK, AgentHEX is saying that when he points out that people are complaining about things he thinks are not real, it improves threads. However, it is beyond doubt at this point that one needs to adjust to playing with most of the Chinese seamed 40+ balls if one is used to celluloid (or any of the other 40+ balls).  That is real. Even one such as Liu Guoliang points out that adjustment is needed.  There are many ways that the seamed 40+ balls are flawed.  Low bounce, too many unbalanced or non-round balls, they break like crazy, and if you play with them for awhile they get more wobbly when you spin them on the table.  I don't personally think there is a lot that AgentHEX added here to improve the thread, although he certainly derailed the discussion away from how to best learn to adjust to the change.  Of course, others may disagree.

Simply observe that this topic was supposed to be about ball adjustments yet the first page of this thread concerns ittf this and that is typically how these go. Somebody points out how meaningless this is, writes about actual play adjustments, etc, and subsequently the usual ittf-hate-based derailing is minimized. It's certainly your own prerogative to believe whatever, but the facts of the case are transcribed above.

AgentHEX wrote: In the particular case, it's pretty obvious hardbat vs sponge is simply a matter of numbers here. The positions themselves make no actual difference as typically the case when discussions lack substance.

Complaining about the seamed 40+ balls has lead to the balls not being used at many tournaments iin the US. Westchester switched to XSF. Joola supposedly switched manufacturers and is making a sturdier product. Non-pros in China are boycotting the DHS ball. In the US, the main reason why Joola balls are used is that they are donated to tournament directors for free.

This is the result of all the dogpiling that has happened. But of course, it wasn't dogpiling. It was letting TDs know how players felt so that they could empathize and change. But of course, how would someone who never plays tournaments understand that?

if you select seamless ball, like Yinhe/XSF, you'll soon get used to it, believe me. there is not big difference between them.

I've been playing with plastic balls (primarily the YinHe seamless) for a while now and I've had mixed results in switching to other balls.

Greetings, hookumsnivy's buddy chiming in with my two cents on the plastic balls I've played with.

At club, snivy has frequently brought in Yinhe balls, and from playing matches I didn't think it was too bad. Some adjusting required but nothing too extravagant. The durability was quite good too, did not break that fast, although still a bit faster than the old celluloid ball.

As mentioned, I volunteer for NCTTA and we used Doublefish plastic. I did not play with it on game day, but of the 48 balls supplied, 20 broke. The tournament I hosted the semester prior used Doublefish celluloid and I didn't have a single one break.

I gave out the rest of the balls to the students and some SU students brought the DF plastics to club. I've thus played matches with them and they do feel different than Yinhe. I wouldn't say better or worse, just different. A bit lighter I think. The durability is definitely not there though. I think I went through three DF's breaking while snivy's Yinhe was still holding up. They also break very strangely--I don't think I've ever had a ball break on my paddle instead of the table but the DF's have done so twice on my BH block nonetheless.

I also went to the Rochester tournament and felt the Joola ball to be the worst in bounce predictability. I think they were a bit more durable than the Doublefish but both balls are overall worse than Yinhe. I had one Joola break on my two day's worth of tourney events.

Snivy also brought in an XSF that I played with last Wed. when the DF I was playing with disintegrated on my BH block. I only played half of the rest of the match with the XSF but it felt pretty solid.

In a nutshell my stand on the current state of table tennis balls:
Celluloid > Yinhe = XSF > Doublefish > Joola

aerial wrote: ... I also went to the Rochester tournament and felt the Joola ball to be the worst in bounce predictability. ...

+1 on Joola ball bad bounces.

Among the plastic balls I've played with, Joola balls, to my taste, are the worst. I often miss the ball completely when blocking, when the ball doesn't bounce and slips under my racket. Or the ball sometimes kicks up high, and I can't explain given the stroke.

AgentHEX wrote: The vindictive ad hom-ing really drives the point home.

As does the characterization of people with legitimate complaints as whingers, dogpilers and members of circlejerks.

john18 wrote: Samsonov on the new plastic ball : Samsonov: "The quality of the new plastic balls is below average"

"One thing is certain. This change has served to see the enormous adaptability players have engaged in this sport. Again we changed the game and once again we have adapted. Of course, I'm not sure if it's good at all to hang our heads and accept as normal the fact that something so fundamental in our sport such as the ball is so poor."