Probably the best 40+ ball ? Nittaku Premium (MIJ)

Edited by DreiZ - 08/26/2015 at 12:44pm

I totally agree with people who like playing properties of NP40+.   Also, the best players in my club (including Jim Butler) agree and pretty much won't use anything else unless they have to.  I managed to get quite a few boxes of NP40+ from various sources, so I use them mostly now.  If I can't use NP40+, I will use XSF (I have a bunch of those too).  I like XSF a lot.  As you know, I was the earliest and most vocal advocate for XSF.

But not everyone agrees about NP40+.  I have been in a back-and-forth with two people at OOAK forum.  One guy there claims NP40+ are not round and that he can't get as much spin on them as XSF and Chinese seamed 40+ balls, and he concludes that they are basically terrible balls.  I am pretty sure he is not confusing them with Nittaku SHA.  I find that really bizarre except for one thing, NP40+ balls are very very dusty out of the box, and that can reduce spin if you don't keep your rubber clean until the dust is reduced.  Other than that there is no reason at all that they should be less spinny (and since they have slightly smaller outer diameters, I would think they would be more spinny than XSF or DHS 40+.)  Another guy there agreed that they are less spinny and said that also he thought they sounded bad.  That is also weird to me.  The  sound IMHO is also less plastic.

Now there are four possibilities.  (1) I am full of crap.  Well ok, but a lot of people here confirm my opinion, and our current national champion as well.  (2)  These two guys at OOAK are full of crap (one lives in Europe and one in Australia I think), but they are not insane posters about other stuff.  I have no clue as to their level.  I am completely and totally unconvinced by the methods they are using to assess how spinny the balls are.  (3) Alternatively there is something markedly different and inconsistent about the balls they are using compared to the ones I have.  I have bought balls from TT-Japan, TTNPP, TT11 and Paddle Palace, over the course of the last year.  I have noticed no difference over time or due to vendor.  I find them round, durable enough for a 40+, relatively light, quite hard, and more like celluloid than other 40+ balls -- and also overpriced and too hard to find.  (4) balls are like rubbers and blades and everyone will have their preferences.

me either. 

XSF already is more durable than celluloid IMHO.

Baal wrote: But not everyone agrees about NP40+.  I have been in a back-and-forth with two people at OOAK forum.  One guy there claims NP40+ are not round and that he can't get as much spin on them as XSF and Chinese seamed 40+ balls, and he concludes that they are basically terrible balls.

I can definitely stomach switching between cell and NP40+.  Switching to XSF isn't too bad - it bounces higher and doesn't come through as much so I just have to stand a little closer initially.  Switching to DHS or DF is tough for me though because the bounce is so low.  I end up playing very conservatively for a while.

Baal wrote: I totally agree with people who like playing properties of NP40+.

The one thing I like about the NP40+ is that the ball is ridiculously predictable if you have celluloid instincts drilled into you for years.  I just wish it was more durable.  Even at my league yesterday, after having used XSF balls for three matches, someone proposed we used the NP 40+ and I was initially sad.  But playing with it, all the predictability just came back.  I started blocking again like I know how and flat hitting balls without abandon.

wturber wrote: As for Butler's preference, I'd have to consider that many of the events that are particularly important to him (US Open, Nationals, and maybe the US Team qualifier) use the NP40+ balls.  If I was a top contender in those tournaments, I'd probably favor the NP40+ as well. Maybe that influences his preference?

I'll ask him.

For me the XSF balls are the best because they play fairly close to the celluloid balls, are durable, and most importantly they are in stock! The Nittaku premiums are not the best ball if you can't get them. I also like the idea of going seamless, so I hope the XSF balls really catch on and that everyone starts using them. 

I played about 45 minutes .. at a club .. with cinder block walls 10' back of table .. used the Gambler 3* 40+ .. lots of high velocity shots hitting off the walls .. no breaks ..

Just took some pictures (back light test), found that Nittaku Premium is really unique.

Bran wrote: Baal wrote: Bran wrote: I like XSF best, but I find it hard to believe they're deemed durable! A good edge swing and they're gone. Yes, in normal use they are good, but sooner or later it happens. I've never seen a seamless ball die of old age, always brutal deaths. I define durability as how long I can play with a ball on average before they are un-useable for whatever reason.  About the only way you can kill a XSF is if it hits a sharp edge, and in my experience, on average, it takes a longer time for this to happen than it takes to achieve the demise of any other ball. So do I actually, indeed I thought I didn't make it clear. 144 balls lasted our group (less than 10 training on average twice a week) 3 months. Back of the envelope calculation says 3 months at twice a week = 13 weeks * 2.5h, times 5 (assuming 10 play together,so 5 tables), so 162.5h of play for 144 balls. This means about one hour per ball! It's a very rough approximation, but this sounds really scary. On a bad session, I can break up to 3-4 balls, and this drastically brings down the stats. It's also depressing given their prices.

The only way I can respond is that I have been using XSF balls since April 2014 and was the first person on English language forums to forcefully advocate for seamless balls, initially against considerable skepticism (based on the awful prototype balls they had released a year earlier).  My extensive experience is very different (and I am far from the only person who calls them durable).  Your experience is what it is, but it seems to me there must be something very different about the playing conditions where we both play. 

Aha, opaque vs translucent.

Edited by zeio - 08/27/2015 at 11:01am