Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET Homepage
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Shortness of Pips
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum Home Forum Home > Equipment > Equipment

Shortness of Pips

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
alexuganski View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 01/28/2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 169
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote alexuganski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Shortness of Pips
    Posted: 11/07/2017 at 12:49pm
I know there are defined limits on pip density and a max length. Is their a minimum shortness requirement of pips? How short can they be?

This is with regards to both short pips and inverted rubber. How close to a "smooth, pip-free" sheet of rubber could the topsheet become?
CSV OFF-
FH: RASANTER R47 2.3
BH: RASANT GRIP 2.1
#VamosRafa
Back to Top
zeio View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member


Joined: 03/25/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 5533
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zeio Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/07/2017 at 1:35pm
Yes, .5mm for inverted/anti and 1mm for short/longpips.

https://d3mjm6zw6cr45s.cloudfront.net/2017/10/T4_Racket_Coverings_BOD2017.pdf_0.pdf
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g
Back to Top
ohwell View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 08/04/2017
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Points: 96
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ohwell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/07/2017 at 3:05pm
Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

Yes, .5mm for inverted/anti and 1mm for short/longpips.

https://d3mjm6zw6cr45s.cloudfront.net/2017/10/T4_Racket_Coverings_BOD2017.pdf_0.pdf

Do you know why no pips is not allowed?
Back to Top
APW46 View Drop Down
Assistant Moderator
Assistant Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 02/02/2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3199
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote APW46 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/07/2017 at 4:31pm
Originally posted by ohwell ohwell wrote:

Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

Yes, .5mm for inverted/anti and 1mm for short/longpips.

https://d3mjm6zw6cr45s.cloudfront.net/2017/10/T4_Racket_Coverings_BOD2017.pdf_0.pdf

Do you know why no pips is not allowed?
 it is, its called reverse, or do you mean just a sheet of rubber, no pips any side ? actually, if you do mean that, you have a point.
The Older I get, The better I was.
Back to Top
ohwell View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 08/04/2017
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Points: 96
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ohwell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/07/2017 at 4:50pm
Originally posted by APW46 APW46 wrote:

Originally posted by ohwell ohwell wrote:

Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

Yes, .5mm for inverted/anti and 1mm for short/longpips.

https://d3mjm6zw6cr45s.cloudfront.net/2017/10/T4_Racket_Coverings_BOD2017.pdf_0.pdf

Do you know why no pips is not allowed?
 it is, its called reverse, or do you mean just a sheet of rubber, no pips any side ? actually, if you do mean that, you have a point.

Yup!  I'd argue that by definition, all inverted rubbers have pips: otherwise there would be nothing to "invert"..  :D

I doubt it would be very hard to explain the benefits of pips - both for pips out and for inverted rubbers.  But ITTF sees it fit to ban pip-less rubbers.  Which makes me wonder what benefits there might be to pip-less rubbers..  (To be honest, I wouldn't be all that surprised if that was just another example of ITTF zeal: banning something that doesn't need to be banned.  But who knows?  Did players ever manage to gain some unfair advantage by using pip-less rubbers?)


Edited by ohwell - 11/07/2017 at 4:54pm
Back to Top
APW46 View Drop Down
Assistant Moderator
Assistant Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 02/02/2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3199
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote APW46 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/07/2017 at 5:09pm
Originally posted by ohwell ohwell wrote:

Originally posted by APW46 APW46 wrote:

Originally posted by ohwell ohwell wrote:

Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

Yes, .5mm for inverted/anti and 1mm for short/longpips.

https://d3mjm6zw6cr45s.cloudfront.net/2017/10/T4_Racket_Coverings_BOD2017.pdf_0.pdf

Do you know why no pips is not allowed?
 it is, its called reverse, or do you mean just a sheet of rubber, no pips any side ? actually, if you do mean that, you have a point.

Yup!  I'd argue that by definition, all inverted rubbers have pips: otherwise there would be nothing to "invert"..  :D

I doubt it would be very hard to explain the benefits of pips - both for pips out and for inverted rubbers.  But ITTF sees it fit to ban pip-less rubbers.  Which makes me wonder what benefits there might be to pip-less rubbers..  (To be honest, I wouldn't be all that surprised if that was just another example of ITTF zeal: banning something that doesn't need to be banned.  But who knows?  Did players ever manage to gain some unfair advantage by using pip-less rubbers?)
yes, great post from you, I am interested with the technicalities of this though. I do know that in the 30's 40's, many players loved they set up to be so perished that the pips had worn away. Modernly, I just am not sure that there is a reason that pips have to be involved at all. Only because every rubber has to be approved by the ITTF
The Older I get, The better I was.
Back to Top
alexuganski View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 01/28/2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 169
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote alexuganski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/07/2017 at 8:54pm
Thumbs Up Yes! You guys understand exactly my thoughts on the subject!

I think if pips were removed from smooth rubber altogether, sponges would become EVEN MORE important than they already are.

Other factors with the rubber topsheet would come to forefront rather than pip height/width, pip alignment, and pip density. Topsheet hardness, thickness and tackiness would be critical. I think softer, more supple topsheets would be the norm to allow the sponge to come through the most.

We need a physics nerd to go in-depth with this stuff!
CSV OFF-
FH: RASANTER R47 2.3
BH: RASANT GRIP 2.1
#VamosRafa
Back to Top
Tassie52 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/09/2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1032
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Tassie52 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/07/2017 at 9:37pm
Originally posted by ohwell ohwell wrote:

But ITTF sees it fit to ban pip-less rubbers.  Which makes me wonder what benefits there might be to pip-less rubbers..  (To be honest, I wouldn't be all that surprised if that was just another example of ITTF zeal: banning something that doesn't need to be banned.  But who knows?  Did players ever manage to gain some unfair advantage by using pip-less rubbers?)
And yet another conspiracy theory arises.  NO, the ITTF never did "ban" pimple less rubbers.  They didn't exist - to any significant degree - for them to decide against them.  As I understand it, pimpled rubber - a la hardbat - was the standard prior to the introduction of sponge.  The regulations were then written to govern how these could be used, either separately or in combination.
Back to Top
zeio View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member


Joined: 03/25/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 5533
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zeio Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/08/2017 at 4:35am
Originally posted by ohwell ohwell wrote:

Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

Yes, .5mm for inverted/anti and 1mm for short/longpips.

https://d3mjm6zw6cr45s.cloudfront.net/2017/10/T4_Racket_Coverings_BOD2017.pdf_0.pdf


Do you know why no pips is not allowed?

I think it has always been like that when the ITTF were forced to come up with an official regulation for types of rubber allowed after sponge and then inverted rubber became prominent. They might have thought about it but I suspect they already had enough trouble at hand that they did not want to create more with the no pips inverted.

They standardized that inverted rubber(anti included) has to come with sponge, pips could either be ox(orthodox) or with sponge. This "compromise" was actually the idea of China. Japan, South Korea, Sweden and Yugoslavia and many others were against it. It was not pretty.

There is a series of newsletters and articles on the old museum site that recounted the circumstances(read mess) faced by the ITTF at the time, which unfortunately have all been taken down along with TMS.

Edited by zeio - 11/08/2017 at 4:47am
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g
Back to Top
zeio View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member


Joined: 03/25/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 5533
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zeio Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/08/2017 at 5:00am
Originally posted by Tassie52 Tassie52 wrote:

Originally posted by ohwell ohwell wrote:

But ITTF sees it fit to ban pip-less rubbers.  Which makes me wonder what benefits there might be to pip-less rubbers..  (To be honest, I wouldn't be all that surprised if that was just another example of ITTF zeal: banning something that doesn't need to be banned.  But who knows?  Did players ever manage to gain some unfair advantage by using pip-less rubbers?)


And yet another conspiracy theory arises.  NO, the ITTF never did "ban" pimple less rubbers.  They didn't exist - to any significant degree - for them to decide against them.  As I understand it, pimpled rubber - a la hardbat - was the standard prior to the introduction of sponge.  The regulations were then written to govern how these could be used, either separately or in combination.

Another point is that pip-less inverted will very likely perform worse than normal inverted. The reason why normal inverted dominates has to do exactly with the pips. Upon impact, the extra space between the topsheet and sponge allow them to stretch more and once the pips dig into the sponge, this increased contact area between the topsheet and ball allows more storage of the potential energy both in the topsheet and sponge. It's a win-win situation.

In a Butterfly video, the wow factor of Tenergy is projected on screen in very much the same way. Check out the videos for Bryce Highspeed. It looks really cool.

Edited by zeio - 11/08/2017 at 5:02am
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g
Back to Top
berndt_mann View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 02/02/2015
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 1726
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote berndt_mann Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/08/2017 at 6:51am
Originally posted by Tassie52 Tassie52 wrote:

Originally posted by ohwell ohwell wrote:

But ITTF sees it fit to ban pip-less rubbers.  Which makes me wonder what benefits there might be to pip-less rubbers..  (To be honest, I wouldn't be all that surprised if that was just another example of ITTF zeal: banning something that doesn't need to be banned.  But who knows?  Did players ever manage to gain some unfair advantage by using pip-less rubbers?)
And yet another conspiracy theory arises.  NO, the ITTF never did "ban" pimple less rubbers.  They didn't exist - to any significant degree - for them to decide against them.  As I understand it, pimpled rubber - a la hardbat - was the standard prior to the introduction of sponge.  The regulations were then written to govern how these could be used, either separately or in combination.


So far as I know, Tassie52 is correct.  While all manner of interesting racket coverings could be and were affixed to table tennis rackets prior to 1959, such as felt, crepe, leather, vellum (parchment), cork, as the rule in effect before then permitted virtually any striking surface if it were not white or mirrorlike, short pimpled rubber without sponge was the rubber of choice for players of all levels prior to the legitimization in 1959 of sandwich sponge, inverted sponge, and bringing up the rear short pips without sponge

I have never seen, and I have seen a great many pre-1959 table tennis rackets, a racket with a covering consisting solely of flat smooth rubber.  If such a racket existed, I doubt that it would have been a particularly effective weapon.
Back to Top
fatt View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/15/2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 14157
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fatt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/08/2017 at 8:25am
Originally posted by alexuganski alexuganski wrote:

Thumbs Up Yes! You guys understand exactly my thoughts on the subject!

I think if pips were removed from smooth rubber altogether, sponges would become EVEN MORE important than they already are.

Other factors with the rubber topsheet would come to forefront rather than pip height/width, pip alignment, and pip density. Topsheet hardness, thickness and tackiness would be critical. I think softer, more supple topsheets would be the norm to allow the sponge to come through the most.

We need a physics nerd to go in-depth with this stuff!
...or the new topsheets would allow so much more spin the sponge would be less important ? How about a very tender & very thick top sheet with a very springy but still hard and thin sponge?
rl gear ( •_•)O¯`·.¸.·´¯`°Q(•_•) feedback
Back to Top
fatt View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/15/2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 14157
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fatt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/08/2017 at 9:18am
What an interesting topic! Can you imagine the incredible EJ tsunami that we’d get? It would crazily go round the planet. Almost too tempting for companies so they’ll lobby and win if there is money to make; if they don’t it means one of 2 things: 1)pips in REALLY add something great in speed and spin, it’s silly to make them go away so no money there or 2) it would allow cheap, thick and tender topsheets on cheap thin sponge to act better than the best of today and no brand would come out as the very best.

I guess it would be possible to have whatever pips sunk into the sponge but how? while the sponge goes fro a liquid to its final state? It would be hard to have something consistent and we’d get a lot of waste. Probably way too much waste. Or; tedious work, have holes sculpted off the sponge, spray glue and roll over the topsheet’s pips? Tedious but it’s a manufacturing process that could be put together with not much trouble unlike the 1st possibility. In this case would it be legal under current rules?

Karis somehow made a step towards that direction didn’t they? It added tons of control, maybe we can push it all the way sinking the pips in the sponge? I would ask Nexy in his diary but if it is illegal under current rules better not waste his time?
rl gear ( •_•)O¯`·.¸.·´¯`°Q(•_•) feedback
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 12323
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/08/2017 at 1:45pm
Pips on inverted rubbers are huge for their performance. Simply compare T25 with T64.

I have found as a non-pro player that there are some advantages to playing with a rubber that goes as close towards eliminating them as possible whilst still complying with Technical Bulletin T4. 

Nexy Karis M.

Takes a little getting used to and certainly robs you of some explosiveness but once you get used to it, the rubber becomes much more predictable.

As for how this rule came about, I was not aware of all of the detailed politicking behind the scenes in 1959 that led to that, but basically it has been that way since 1959.  I remember my first real blade (an Alser with Yasaka *** Cobra purchased in Stockholm in 1969).  It struck me as weird then that they had put pips on the inside, and the box and blade proudly proclaimed "Backside Topspin".  I didn't know then that the pips had to be there.  In one of my first tournaments (I was about 12 or 13) some old guy I had just beaten complained that my racket was illegal since according to the rules it was supposed to have pips, and he didn't want to accept it when I pointed out that the rubber had them on the inside. One of my first experiences with TT anachronisms.  This must have been sometime in 1971.


Back to Top
ohwell View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 08/04/2017
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Points: 96
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ohwell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/08/2017 at 2:58pm
Originally posted by Tassie52 Tassie52 wrote:

Originally posted by ohwell ohwell wrote:

But ITTF sees it fit to ban pip-less rubbers.  Which makes me wonder what benefits there might be to pip-less rubbers..  (To be honest, I wouldn't be all that surprised if that was just another example of ITTF zeal: banning something that doesn't need to be banned.  But who knows?  Did players ever manage to gain some unfair advantage by using pip-less rubbers?)
And yet another conspiracy theory arises.  NO, the ITTF never did "ban" pimple less rubbers.  They didn't exist - to any significant degree - for them to decide against them.  As I understand it, pimpled rubber - a la hardbat - was the standard prior to the introduction of sponge.  The regulations were then written to govern how these could be used, either separately or in combination.

I never took claims beginning with "I wouldn't be surprised if" to be theories. Tongue But point taken.  It was a gratuitous jab in ITTF's direction, and doesn't help the discussion.. 

Back to Top
ohwell View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 08/04/2017
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Points: 96
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ohwell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/08/2017 at 3:06pm
Originally posted by berndt_mann berndt_mann wrote:

Originally posted by Tassie52 Tassie52 wrote:

the ITTF never did "ban" pimple less rubbers.  They didn't exist - to any significant degree - for them to decide against them.  As I understand it, pimpled rubber - a la hardbat - was the standard prior to the introduction of sponge.  The regulations were then written to govern how these could be used, either separately or in combination.


So far as I know, Tassie52 is correct.  While all manner of interesting racket coverings could be and were affixed to table tennis rackets prior to 1959, such as felt, crepe, leather, vellum (parchment), cork, as the rule in effect before then permitted virtually any striking surface if it were not white or mirrorlike, short pimpled rubber without sponge was the rubber of choice for players of all levels prior to the legitimization in 1959 of sandwich sponge, inverted sponge, and bringing up the rear short pips without sponge

Very interesting.  So, from your posts together with Zeio's posts, the move seems to have been meant (1) to make room for the most effective and most common approaches, and (2) to make oversight a manageable task by setting boundaries on the range of coverings that could be introduced moving forward.  That's quite sensible.


Edited by ohwell - 11/08/2017 at 3:09pm
Back to Top
bbkon View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member


Joined: 04/19/2005
Location: Afghanistan
Status: Offline
Points: 6883
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bbkon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/08/2017 at 3:15pm
Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

Yes, .5mm for inverted/anti and 1mm for short/longpips.

https://d3mjm6zw6cr45s.cloudfront.net/2017/10/T4_Racket_Coverings_BOD2017.pdf_0.pdf


short pips shorter than 1mm were allowed until liu guoliang came .before that pips could be shorter..I got this in about.com when several posters sent emails to the guy in charge of equipment. the answer was strange said." dont know why spinpips were banned but there s nothing you can do about it" a guy called harrison equipment guy at ittf

Edited by bbkon - 11/08/2017 at 3:16pm
Back to Top
ohwell View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 08/04/2017
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Points: 96
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ohwell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/08/2017 at 3:39pm
Originally posted by bbkon bbkon wrote:

Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

Yes, .5mm for inverted/anti and 1mm for short/longpips.

https://d3mjm6zw6cr45s.cloudfront.net/2017/10/T4_Racket_Coverings_BOD2017.pdf_0.pdf


short pips shorter than 1mm were allowed until liu guoliang came .before that pips could be shorter..I got this in about.com when several posters sent emails to the guy in charge of equipment. the answer was strange said." dont know why spinpips were banned but there s nothing you can do about it" a guy called harrison equipment guy at ittf

Liu Guoliang!  Very interesting.  I really don't know enough about rubber design to have an opinion.  But I was thinking it would be interesting to ask someone knowledgeable whether pip-less topsheets might have be effective for low spin offensive coverings.  (Basically for the same kind of game that offensive players use short pips for.)  I mean I'd be curious to learn whether they might allow, e.g. for more predictable behavior pips.  

What did Liu Guoliang use prior to the 1mm minimum?

Back to Top
zeio View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member


Joined: 03/25/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 5533
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zeio Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/09/2017 at 12:29am
He was using the TSP Super Spinpips, which was banned when the aspect ratio rule was introduced in 1999? that supposedly was for long pips. Quite a few other short pips were affected IIRC. Many conspiracy theorist insisted it was a move against LGL as the timing was too impeccable, shortly after he achieved the first-ever grand slam for a Chinese player.

A new version of Spinpips, the Spinpips MD, replaced the banned one, but was banned again in 2005, fueling further speculation.

Discussion from 2000.

Edited by zeio - 11/09/2017 at 12:36am
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g
Back to Top
bbkon View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member


Joined: 04/19/2005
Location: Afghanistan
Status: Offline
Points: 6883
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bbkon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/09/2017 at 12:41am
Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

He was using the Super Spinpips, which was banned when the aspect ratio rule was introduced in 1999? that supposedly was for long pips. Quite a few other short pips were affected IIRC. Many conspiracy theorist insisted it was a move against LGL as the timing was too impeccable, shortly after he achieved the first-ever grand slam for a Chinese player.


the aspect ratio was unveiled to make spinpips illegal ittf and othet officials created the durban rule because the experts created the aspect rule in durban city.its not a theory this real fact was told by an ittf oficial who never was identified but unveiled a lot of info on about.com. its not hard to understand that a rubber used along decades its suddenly illegal when the worlf champion played with spinpips.its like fukuhara beating cnt and medium pips armstrong are not longer legal

Edited by bbkon - 11/09/2017 at 12:43am
Back to Top
zeio View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member


Joined: 03/25/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 5533
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zeio Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/09/2017 at 1:38am
Ya, it's claimed J. Rufford-Harrison was behind all this and some more. It's claimed he did the same thing to Jiang Jialiang's 652 and Xie Saike's 651. Though I couldn't verify the claim, it's true both models have gone through a few versions.
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g
Back to Top
bbkon View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member


Joined: 04/19/2005
Location: Afghanistan
Status: Offline
Points: 6883
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bbkon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/09/2017 at 1:44am
Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

Ya, it's claimed J. Rufford-Harrison was behind all this and some more. It's claimed he did the same thing to Jiang Jialiang's 652 and Xie Saike's 651. Though I couldn't verify the claim, it's true both models have gone through a few versions.


and deng yaping pips too
Back to Top
zeio View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member


Joined: 03/25/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 5533
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zeio Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/09/2017 at 1:55am
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g
Back to Top
Tinykin View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/30/2003
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 2022
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tinykin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/09/2017 at 4:17am
Originally posted by berndt_mann berndt_mann wrote:

Originally posted by Tassie52 Tassie52 wrote:

Originally posted by ohwell ohwell wrote:

But ITTF sees it fit to ban pip-less rubbers.  Which makes me wonder what benefits there might be to pip-less rubbers..  (To be honest, I wouldn't be all that surprised if that was just another example of ITTF zeal: banning something that doesn't need to be banned.  But who knows?  Did players ever manage to gain some unfair advantage by using pip-less rubbers?)
And yet another conspiracy theory arises.  NO, the ITTF never did "ban" pimple less rubbers.  They didn't exist - to any significant degree - for them to decide against them.  As I understand it, pimpled rubber - a la hardbat - was the standard prior to the introduction of sponge.  The regulations were then written to govern how these could be used, either separately or in combination.


So far as I know, Tassie52 is correct.  While all manner of interesting racket coverings could be and were affixed to table tennis rackets prior to 1959, such as felt, crepe, leather, vellum (parchment), cork, as the rule in effect before then permitted virtually any striking surface if it were not white or mirrorlike, short pimpled rubber without sponge was the rubber of choice for players of all levels prior to the legitimization in 1959 of sandwich sponge, inverted sponge, and bringing up the rear short pips without sponge

I have never seen, and I have seen a great many pre-1959 table tennis rackets, a racket with a covering consisting solely of flat smooth rubber.  If such a racket existed, I doubt that it would have been a particularly effective weapon.


There were several bats with smooth rubber. Basically, players/makers used rubber from the type of material used for inner tubes from car tyres. Dunlop supplied everything and everyone in those days. But the bats were difficult to put together and keep a smooth surface. Plus there was no performance advantage over pips out bats. I got this info from an old guy who used to manufacture bats in the fifties/sixties. Unfortunately, I haven't seen him in years and suspect that he has passed on.

>60yo, 60lbs overweight

Darker Speed 90 + Tibhar EL-S / EL-S

When all else fails, there is always delusion.
Back to Top
ohwell View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 08/04/2017
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Points: 96
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ohwell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/09/2017 at 11:49am
Wow keep the posts coming, all the comments are fascinating!

Re: Liu Guoliang and restrictions on short pip geometry. This case can be tied to the concerns raised above about pipless rubbers. There are good reasons to set limits to the range of covering types allowed.   But confronted with some way of drawing the line, we can also ask whether there are good reasons for being a little more permissive (or a little more restrictive), and do those good reasons outweigh the potential downsides of doing so?

That would be a better way to ask the question of whether pipless rubbers should be allowed. And cases like the 1999 aspect ratio rule (much more so than the 1959 rules) give us a model for trying to understand ittf’s resent approach to those issues. I mean, it’s a recent example of ITTF becoming more restrictive about topsheet geometry. (Pip vs pipless topsheets is also a matter of topsheet geometry (and not, say, chemical composition.)

With that in mind I’d be curious to hear people’s take on what compelling reasons ITTF might have had for the aspect ratio rule?



Edited by ohwell - 11/09/2017 at 11:49am
Back to Top
bbkon View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member


Joined: 04/19/2005
Location: Afghanistan
Status: Offline
Points: 6883
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bbkon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/09/2017 at 1:36pm
Originally posted by ohwell ohwell wrote:

Wow keep the posts coming, all the comments are fascinating!

Re: Liu Guoliang and restrictions on short pip geometry. This case can be tied to the concerns raised above about pipless rubbers. There are good reasons to set limits to the range of covering types allowed.   But confronted with some way of drawing the line, we can also ask whether there are good reasons for being a little more permissive (or a little more restrictive), and do those good reasons outweigh the potential downsides of doing so?

That would be a better way to ask the question of whether pipless rubbers should be allowed. And cases like the 1999 aspect ratio rule (much more so than the 1959 rules) give us a model for trying to understand ittf’s resent approach to those issues. I mean, it’s a recent example of ITTF becoming more restrictive about topsheet geometry. (Pip vs pipless topsheets is also a matter of topsheet geometry (and not, say, chemical composition.)

With that in mind I’d be curious to hear people’s take on what compelling reasons ITTF might have had for the aspect ratio rule?



ittf regulations are always meant to prevent cheating or unfair advantage. what edgr gives you a shorter pips of the geometry of the rubber used by the world champion?

its like saying that he won because his rubber helped him.

former world class amoretti said. "its bad for the sport to win with serves and 3rd ball attack"
Back to Top
zeio View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member


Joined: 03/25/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 5533
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zeio Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/09/2017 at 2:01pm
It is said pips for inverted topsheet were allowed to be upside down, where the larger base is facing the sponge. There was a Japanese brand called "Earth" with a topsheet like that. That was the first inverted rubber used by the CNT. It was outlawed some time after the standardization.
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃)
= 184.8g
Back to Top
BRS View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member


Joined: 05/08/2013
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BRS Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/09/2017 at 2:17pm
Cornilleau tacteo t50 doesn't appear to have pips. The surface is wavy like the sole of an old-school sneaker (trainer). I had a blast playing with those after hours at the B75. Could take massive swings and get great spin. I'm sure they are completely ittf illegal, but good fun to play with.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.
Mark all posts as read :: Delete cookies set by this forum

Cookies and JavaScript must be enabled on your web browser in order to use this forum


Copyright © 2003-2013 MyTableTennis.NET - All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer