Print Page | Close Window

Questions About The New 40+ Balls

Printed From: Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET
Category: Equipment
Forum Name: Equipment
Forum Description: Share your experience and discussions about table tennis equipments.
Moderator: haggisv
Assistant Moderators: position available

URL: http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=70591
Printed Date: 03/29/2024 at 5:30am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Questions About The New 40+ Balls
Posted By: bobloiy
Subject: Questions About The New 40+ Balls
Date Posted: 03/04/2015 at 11:54pm
My first question is, what is the possibility that sometime in the future, more companies will make balls like XSF's? DHS balls are really bad right now...

Second question, for any of you that did transition from celluloid to plastic (esp. non XSF/Nexy), did you perform noticeably worse for a couple of days? I feel like the lower bounce and less speed is affecting more than I thought. Or, I'm just not confident in my shots and that's causing me to miss more and try less.



Replies:
Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/04/2015 at 11:59pm
You are not alone.


Posted By: bobloiy
Date Posted: 03/05/2015 at 12:02am
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

You are not alone.


Did you transition over to plastic as well? I'm worried because I'm afraid balls that play like XSF will never get major recognition because they aren't being used in international competition. I have a feeling DHS balls (or similar) will be used for most tournaments, although XSF balls are vastly superior.


Posted By: bbkon
Date Posted: 03/05/2015 at 12:41am
Originally posted by bobloiy bobloiy wrote:

My first question is, what is the possibility that sometime in the future, more companies will make balls like XSF's? DHS balls are really bad right now...

Second question, for any of you that did transition from celluloid to plastic (esp. non XSF/Nexy), did you perform noticeably worse for a couple of days? I feel like the lower bounce and less speed is affecting more than I thought. Or, I'm just not confident in my shots and that's causing me to miss more and try less.

i have noticed that semi worn 40+ balls are unplayable when they get slick


Posted By: asifgunz
Date Posted: 03/05/2015 at 1:01am
tbh Im going through a "blade, tearmender, Omega IV won't listen to me, doming on me after 1.5 years  " effect. Even through all this, I didn't notice much of a difference. Or maybe I just blamed my 4 year old backup paddle with 4 year old omega IV pro, for all the inconsistent shots. If Nittaku decides to make the new balls, It will definitely be in the top list of the many. That's a given.
Even their non 3 star balls play as well as bty 3 stars.


-------------


"I do not have any idols. I am my own idol." - Zhang Jike

Feedback: http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=71761&PN=1#905629


Posted By: BH-Man
Date Posted: 03/05/2015 at 7:48am
OP, I did a tourney using the seamed Poly Ball I can say I NEVER saw a ball bounce so inconsistent (except for the same ball Boston TTC players broke out one night I was there) and I cannot tell you how dis-satisfied I was with its (seamed Poly Ball) performance.

-------------
Korea Foreign Table Tennis Club
Search for us on Facebook: koreaforeignttc


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/05/2015 at 10:24am
OP, I use exclusively polyballs for almost a year now.  I have tried nearly every one made in the world today (almost) and made it my mission to find out everything I could about them.  I was very much opposed to this change beforehand. 

By far the best ones are seamless (make sure you get balls that are ITTF approved).  The only other ones I like for sure are Nittaku Premium 40+ (from a pure playing point of view).  The seamless balls have a good bounce that is quite easy to adjust too, they are durable and less expensive.  They are marketed by tradenames of XuShaoFa, Nexy, Yinhe, Palio, Stag, probably some others too.  They are a bit cheaper and very durable also, and definitely the most round ball, with the highest bounce.  I cannot discern any playing difference between the three brands I've tried.  None of us expected the seamless balls to be good based on prototypes we had 18 months ago, but they are good (if they are ITTF approved).  I think more than anyone I have pushed people to try them and now there are a lot of satisfied people on the internet.  My small contribution to table tennis, I suppose.

The Nittkum Premium 40+ is made in Japan, has a seam but a very small one (you can only see it if you hold it up to the light).  It is expensive, not as durable, and worst of all, almost always back-ordered and impossible to buy (and more than $3.00 per ball when you can find them).  They are less durable than seamless, but at least have a decent bounce.  They are a little faster to play with then the seamless.  They are pretty good to play with too, but if you are used to seamless it takes an hour or two to adjust to the Nittaku Premium.  These are probably the most like celluloid.  Like I said, though, good luck buying one. 

All other balls (including the Nittaku SHA) have large very visible seams and are made in China by either DHS or Double Fish.  In general they are all terrible and pretty much the same and everybody has the problems you are talking about adjusting to them.  I won't use them if I have a choice.  They have destroyed the enjoyment of playing for a lot of people, but in time you can adjust a little bit, but never completely.

I do have one piece of good news on that front.  Two nights ago I played with some Butterfly 40+ balls that had been made very recently, Feb 2015 according to stamp on the box.  These seem to be much better in terms of the bounce than any Chinese seamed ball I had used before.  They had a decent bounce.  The problem was that many of the balls in that box of 12 had pretty unacceptable deviations from roundness, but in my mind they have definitely made progress.

So far all of the seamed balls made in China have had durability problems, although there is some sense on forums that the ones made by Double Fish are a little better.  The Butterfly ball is made by DOuble Fish, so there is reason to hope that over the next year, the Chinese seamed balls may (1) figure out how to make something better.  It is also people that some makers will give up on the seamed balls and make deals to manufacture seamless balls, which are simply better.  For now all of the 40+ balls marketed by European companies (Joola, Donic, Stiga, etc) are made by DHS and are truly awful.

People should not talk about "THE" plastic ball, as there are currently 3-4 distinct varieties and they are not all the same.  That in itself is an unacceptable situation that we never really had to deal with in the days of celluloid.


Posted By: LUCKYLOOP
Date Posted: 03/05/2015 at 3:54pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

OP, I use exclusively polyballs for almost a year now.  I have tried nearly every one made in the world today (almost) and made it my mission to find out everything I could about them.  I was very much opposed to this change beforehand. 

By far the best ones are seamless (make sure you get balls that are ITTF approved).  The only other ones I like for sure are Nittaku Premium 40+ (from a pure playing point of view).  The seamless balls have a good bounce that is quite easy to adjust too, they are durable and less expensive.  They are marketed by tradenames of XuShaoFa, Nexy, Yinhe, Palio, Stag, probably some others too.  They are a bit cheaper and very durable also, and definitely the most round ball, with the highest bounce.  I cannot discern any playing difference between the three brands I've tried.  None of us expected the seamless balls to be good based on prototypes we had 18 months ago, but they are good (if they are ITTF approved).  I think more than anyone I have pushed people to try them and now there are a lot of satisfied people on the internet.  My small contribution to table tennis, I suppose.

The Nittkum Premium 40+ is made in Japan, has a seam but a very small one (you can only see it if you hold it up to the light).  It is expensive, not as durable, and worst of all, almost always back-ordered and impossible to buy (and more than $3.00 per ball when you can find them).  They are less durable than seamless, but at least have a decent bounce.  They are a little faster to play with then the seamless.  They are pretty good to play with too, but if you are used to seamless it takes an hour or two to adjust to the Nittaku Premium.  These are probably the most like celluloid.  Like I said, though, good luck buying one. 

All other balls (including the Nittaku SHA) have large very visible seams and are made in China by either DHS or Double Fish.  In general they are all terrible and pretty much the same and everybody has the problems you are talking about adjusting to them.  I won't use them if I have a choice.  They have destroyed the enjoyment of playing for a lot of people, but in time you can adjust a little bit, but never completely.

I do have one piece of good news on that front.  Two nights ago I played with some Butterfly 40+ balls that had been made very recently, Feb 2015 according to stamp on the box.  These seem to be much better in terms of the bounce than any Chinese seamed ball I had used before.  They had a decent bounce.  The problem was that many of the balls in that box of 12 had pretty unacceptable deviations from roundness, but in my mind they have definitely made progress.

So far all of the seamed balls made in China have had durability problems, although there is some sense on forums that the ones made by Double Fish are a little better.  The Butterfly ball is made by DOuble Fish, so there is reason to hope that over the next year, the Chinese seamed balls may (1) figure out how to make something better.  It is also people that some makers will give up on the seamed balls and make deals to manufacture seamless balls, which are simply better.  For now all of the 40+ balls marketed by European companies (Joola, Donic, Stiga, etc) are made by DHS and are truly awful.

People should not talk about "THE" plastic ball, as there are currently 3-4 distinct varieties and they are not all the same.  That in itself is an unacceptable situation that we never really had to deal with in the days of celluloid.



Check out what Larry Hodges says (answer #5) about the new poly balls:

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Table-Tennis/Features/2015/March/03/11-Questions" rel="nofollow - Larry Hodges

-------------
Hntr Fl / 4H & BH Xiom Sigma Pro 2 2.0
Yinhe T-2 / 4H Xiom Sig Pro 2 2.0 BH Xiom Omega IV Elite Max
Gam DC / 4H DHS Hurricane 8 39deg 2.1 BH GD CC LP OX
HARDBAT / Hock 3 ply / Frenshp Dr Evil OX


Posted By: bogeyhunter
Date Posted: 03/05/2015 at 4:29pm
A bit difficult for me to say here. I don't want to create any enemy but MDTTC is sponsored by a big brand. They had to use that brand's balls. I don't think Hodges has played with a good poly ball.

A member here also contacted a few clubs in his area to see if there was a way to change ball. Many clubs got balls from another big brand for free thus they won't change.

-------------
www.NexyUSA.com
We also carries Sauer & Tröger.
Lissom O+EASY P 1mm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_65FLO2Lneo
https://youtu.be/YgYFPJCBCr0
https://youtu.be/NeHp789Lb1c
https://youtu.be/_65FLO2Lneo


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/05/2015 at 5:26pm
I agree with Larry and Bogey both.  Larry is correct in general, I agree that it is a big mess.  Exactly.  My one quibble with him would be if he includes seamless balls in his general condemnation and if he wants to say that the seamless subset of 40+ balls have any sort of systematic problem with roundness, bounce consistency or durability.  They do not. 

My guess is that at the time he wrote that, he had not tried a seamless ball.  If he he had tried them and then made that statement, I would respectfully state that he is mistaken.  I have now a great deal of experience with seamless balls.  I know they are consistently round, with a nice bounce, and among the most durable balls ever made (but with a special vulnerability to hard impacts with edges).  They have some 40+ traits obviously -- they fly a little slower and they spin a little less.  That comes from their size.  All 40+ balls have that property, and it is easy to get used to.


Posted By: bobloiy
Date Posted: 03/05/2015 at 7:43pm
Originally posted by bogeyhunter bogeyhunter wrote:

A bit difficult for me to say here. I don't want to create any enemy but MDTTC is sponsored by a big brand. They had to use that brand's balls. I don't think Hodges has played with a good poly ball.

A member here also contacted a few clubs in his area to see if there was a way to change ball. Many clubs got balls from another big brand for free thus they won't change.


That's exactly what's happening to my club. I haven't seen a major tournament play with the seamless balls, and this resulted in my club changing to DHS balls, which have terrible bounce and speed... Has ok durability and spin though.


Posted By: bogeyhunter
Date Posted: 03/05/2015 at 9:29pm
Originally posted by bobloiy bobloiy wrote:

Originally posted by bogeyhunter bogeyhunter wrote:

A bit difficult for me to say here. I don't want to create any enemy but MDTTC is sponsored by a big brand. They had to use that brand's balls. I don't think Hodges has played with a good poly ball.

A member here also contacted a few clubs in his area to see if there was a way to change ball. Many clubs got balls from another big brand for free thus they won't change.


That's exactly what's happening to my club. I haven't seen a major tournament play with the seamless balls, and this resulted in my club changing to DHS balls, which have terrible bounce and speed... Has ok durability and spin though.


I got in contact with Lindenwood U. They use DHS and the players I chat with are not happy with balls but they have no choice. The main point we talked about was the bounce. If it has less spin or even too much spin or not durable, it still ok all players can adjust but bad bounce is something will make you want to quit.


-------------
www.NexyUSA.com
We also carries Sauer & Tröger.
Lissom O+EASY P 1mm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_65FLO2Lneo
https://youtu.be/YgYFPJCBCr0
https://youtu.be/NeHp789Lb1c
https://youtu.be/_65FLO2Lneo


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/05/2015 at 9:38pm
Originally posted by bogeyhunter bogeyhunter wrote:

If it has less spin or even too much spin or not durable, it still ok all players can adjust but bad bounce is something will make you want to quit.


+ 1 million


Posted By: bobloiy
Date Posted: 03/05/2015 at 11:05pm
Originally posted by bogeyhunter bogeyhunter wrote:

Originally posted by bobloiy bobloiy wrote:

Originally posted by bogeyhunter bogeyhunter wrote:

A bit difficult for me to say here. I don't want to create any enemy but MDTTC is sponsored by a big brand. They had to use that brand's balls. I don't think Hodges has played with a good poly ball.

A member here also contacted a few clubs in his area to see if there was a way to change ball. Many clubs got balls from another big brand for free thus they won't change.


That's exactly what's happening to my club. I haven't seen a major tournament play with the seamless balls, and this resulted in my club changing to DHS balls, which have terrible bounce and speed... Has ok durability and spin though.


I got in contact with Lindenwood U. They use DHS and the players I chat with are not happy with balls but they have no choice. The main point we talked about was the bounce. If it has less spin or even too much spin or not durable, it still ok all players can adjust but bad bounce is something will make you want to quit.


Yup, you got that right. Bounce is killing me right now. I'm wondering, do I take the ball earlier? All the balls I hit at the moment all go into the net, it's frustrating.


Posted By: zheyi
Date Posted: 03/05/2015 at 11:21pm
ive tried some big brand plastic balls namely butterfly, dhs 40+, nittaku sh. and double fish.
The main issue still the roundness to me. We have to spin every ball to sleve out the round one for competition. And durability is something that manufacturer has to deal with.


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/05/2015 at 11:57pm
Originally posted by bobloiy bobloiy wrote:

Originally posted by bogeyhunter bogeyhunter wrote:

Originally posted by bobloiy bobloiy wrote:

Originally posted by bogeyhunter bogeyhunter wrote:

A bit difficult for me to say here. I don't want to create any enemy but MDTTC is sponsored by a big brand. They had to use that brand's balls. I don't think Hodges has played with a good poly ball.

A member here also contacted a few clubs in his area to see if there was a way to change ball. Many clubs got balls from another big brand for free thus they won't change.


That's exactly what's happening to my club. I haven't seen a major tournament play with the seamless balls, and this resulted in my club changing to DHS balls, which have terrible bounce and speed... Has ok durability and spin though.


I got in contact with Lindenwood U. They use DHS and the players I chat with are not happy with balls but they have no choice. The main point we talked about was the bounce. If it has less spin or even too much spin or not durable, it still ok all players can adjust but bad bounce is something will make you want to quit.


Yup, you got that right. Bounce is killing me right now. I'm wondering, do I take the ball earlier? All the balls I hit at the moment all go into the net, it's frustrating.


I think the solution lies with studying and really trying to understand how you intercept the trajectory of the ball.

I had the same problem going into the net at first (~half the first dozen loops), because by default you're just swinging out of habit. In general you'll need to generate a bit more "lift", and depending on how you approach the swing that either means more upward angle of attack (contact slightly lower on the ball, imply bit lower backswing if need be), or if you swing more like the CNT does, more speed into the ball with a tack-ish rubber will lift higher. The slightly slower pace helps the latter, but also means you really need to watch the trajectory and adjust your timing accordingly.

It took a few hours of conscientious tweaking to get used to it; most importantly you need the right motivation, not defeatist attitude.


-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: LOG1C1AN
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 12:55am
Sorry, but no one can "get used to" a ball that is not round and therefore does not bounce consistently.


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 12:56am
@Bobloiy, No you can't just take it earlier.  That will mess up your timing way too much and it's just not tenable most of the time.

But you do have to know a seamed 40+ ball just stays lower.

Actually, there are really two things you have to get used to.  One is the larger size, which affects speed and spin.  In the case of the seamed Chinese balls, you also have to get used to a lower bounce.   (Actually there is a third issue too, which is the that the rough texture of the ball also causes different behavior off the table on things like pushes, serve returns and sidespin loops, but all of the 40+ balls show that behavior).

I suggest breaking the problem into two steps.  First, get some seamless balls and train with them for a few weeks, even if you are mainly going to have to use the crappy seamed balls in tournaments.  This will let you get used to adjustments you have to make for the larger size of the polyballs (and the texture too, which is a not insignificant difference between all of the plastic balls and celluloid).

Then switch to the seamed polyballs (if you feel you have to for tournaments etc.).  Now you will be adjusting to the lower bounce* but you will already have a feel for the trajectory in the air, and the changes in speed and spin and texture.  You will still have some difficulties with the lower bounce -- everybody does -- but this will help reduce some of the frustration  because by the time you learn to deal with that, it will be the only thing unfamiliar to you.

Of course you may decide to just use the seamless ones after this.

* over and above the lack of roundness often seen with Chinese seamed 40+, which Logician mentioned just now, a big  problem with seamed Chinese balls is the lower bounce on essentially every shot.  You can select to find a more round ball, there are always at least one or two round ones in every box, but even if you do, there is going to be some adjustments you need to make for the low bounce.


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 1:52am
Originally posted by LOG1C1AN LOG1C1AN wrote:

Sorry, but no one can "get used to" a ball that is not round and therefore does not bounce consistently.


They're round and bounce consistently as empirically tested by a user on OOAK. The "inconsistency" is most likely a matter of mistaken judgment by players who can't own up to their errors.


-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: pnachtwey
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 2:03am
I don't understand how the balls can be out of round.  The balls are molded in a mold.  What can be in doubt is how even the plastic is distributed on the inside.  The technique is called roto molding.





-------------
I TT therefore I am


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 2:03am
Deviation from roundness easily seen by spinning on the table before playing. Its not iimaginary. I find it an annoying feature of Chinese seamed balls. It is crappy quality control because they dont all deviate but at least one hopelessly bad one in every box. Or more. It seems the manufacturer doesnt care.

Of course it could be the deviation is on the inside of the ball but that doesnt matter in practice.


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 2:20am
Originally posted by pnachtwey pnachtwey wrote:

I don't understand how the balls can be out of round.  The balls are molded in a mold.  What can be in doubt is how even the plastic is distributed on the inside.  The technique is called roto molding.



With seamed balls there's some potential non-uniformity in the joining process, same as cell balls.

Anyway, people can claim whatever they want about inconsistent bounces, but it passes the ITTF test which we don't have data for, and passed "Debater's" test which we can see they bounce uniformly low.


-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 9:34am
Bear in mind that the ITTF test they use now is not the one that they will have to meet in January of 2016.  The standards they are using to approve balls now have never been stated, only the ones they will have to meet in 2016.  So the fact that balls at the moment have an ITTF stamp is obviously a pretty minimal standard, as can be easily ascertained by veer testing, or spinning a ball on the table and watching it behave like an egg.  That was obvious from the same videos from Debater that AgentHEX mentions (the raw data of which he sent to me to do some statistics on).  Debater measured many things as well as he could, and one thing obvious is that the static bounce was very consistent --- very consistently low -- substantially so compared to celluloid. Most of the seamed Chinese balls, certainly the DHS balls, do not meet several of the 2016 standards, among which weight is the most easy to measure.  XSF announced sometime back that they already meet the 2016 standards. 

Having said that, some Butterfly balls I hit with a few days ago, made in Feb 2015, seem to be getting better, although some deviation from apparent roundness (spin tests on the table) were still there.

So anyway, to OP, follow my program (start with seamless, then transition to seamed balls if you must) and you may find it easier to adapt to these crappy things.


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 3:53pm
> The standards they are using to approve balls now have never been stated, only the ones they will have to meet in 2016.

"Never been stated"
http://www.ittf.com/stories/pictures/T3_Ball_forBoD2014_final.pdf

If anyone could be bothered to read the actual doc the "minimal standard" <2016 bounce spec lower bound is only 3mm out of 240mm less than 2016, or ~1%. The plastic ball (the worst possible DHS tested) also had much more consistent bounce than celluloid.

>  So the fact that balls at the moment have an ITTF stamp is obviously a pretty minimal standard, as can be easily ascertained by veer testing, or spinning a ball on the table and watching it behave like an egg. 

Good thing someone measured for nearly everything incl. veer and sent you the raw data to do some statistics on to correctly determine they pass same 2016 spec as celluloid on all except maybe bounce height, where it's a bit ambiguous because Debater used a different test platform than the ITTF. Regardless the spec difference is so minimal that even in the worst possible case DHS only has to make their ball bounce 1% higher for the 2016 spec.

The facts of this case are pretty straightforward, only less so when bent to suit previous biases.


-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 4:56pm
You are right, I had read that technical leaflet, but forgot that they did specify some standards.  As you can see in that pdf, many of the required standards were relaxed until January 2016 for 40+ balls.  It has been discussed at length.  But of course, for veer, the property that may be most relevant to the properties players complain about, Debater's data showed that  the Joola 40+ balls (basically DHS) have significant issues. 

I also KNOW (am not guessing), I KNOW that some of the standards are not being followed.  I have purchased recently an ITTF approved plastic ball that was not packaged with date codes (in clear violation of section C.4). 

And I know that many of the seamed balls that we spin on the table are not regular compared to usual for cellulloid or seamless.  So yes, the facts actually are quite straightforward,  as you say.  ITTF is not enforcing the already weakened standards in that technical leaflet.  They have stated many times that they are giving manufacturers a break for awhile because it turned out to be unexpectedly challenging for some factories to meet the standards they had proposed.

I can also state for a fact that players around 1,000 rating points better than you dislike these balls intensely owing to bad bounces and deviations from round behavior (our current national champion, a friend of mine).  And then there is one who is a world champion.

http://tabletennista.com/2015/2/ding-ning-not-yet-fully-adapted-to-the-plastic-ball-video/?utm_source=facebook&utm_term=ding-ning-not-yet-fully-adapted-to-the-plastic-ball-video&utm_campaign=fb-tta" rel="nofollow - http://tabletennista.com/2015/2/ding-ning-not-yet-fully-adapted-to-the-plastic-ball-video/?utm_source=facebook&utm_term=ding-ning-not-yet-fully-adapted-to-the-plastic-ball-video&utm_campaign=fb-tta


Posted By: LUCKYLOOP
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 5:01pm

Deleted

-------------
Hntr Fl / 4H & BH Xiom Sigma Pro 2 2.0
Yinhe T-2 / 4H Xiom Sig Pro 2 2.0 BH Xiom Omega IV Elite Max
Gam DC / 4H DHS Hurricane 8 39deg 2.1 BH GD CC LP OX
HARDBAT / Hock 3 ply / Frenshp Dr Evil OX


Posted By: hookumsnivy
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 5:07pm
I don't know if it's that they're not round (some aren't), or if they develop soft spots over time, but I played with the joola 40+ POS at my last tournament and I had some very odd bounces.  I wasn't the only person complaining about the weird bounces at the tournament so I know it wasn't just me.

If these pass the ITTF tests, then there is a problem with either the requirements or the testing procedures.  Adjusting to a lower bounce, less spin and less speed is easy.  The randomness of some bounces is not something I'll ever get used to.  I've used seamless balls for weeks without questioning the bounce, but using Joola balls that had been used for a day or 2 was very aggravating.


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 5:11pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

You are right, I had read that technical leaflet, but forgot that they did specify some standards.  As you can see in that pdf, many of the required standards were relaxed until January 2016 for 40+ balls.  It has been discussed at length.  But of course, for veer, the property that may be most relevant to the properties players complain about, Debater's data showed that  the Joola 40+ balls (basically DHS) have significant issues. 

I also KNOW (am not guessing), I KNOW that some of the standards are not being followed.  I have purchased recently an ITTF approved plastic ball that was not packaged with date codes (in clear violation of section C.4). 

And I know that many of the seamed balls that we spin on the table are not regular compared to usual for cellulloid or seamless.  So yes, the facts actually are quite straightforward,  as you say.  ITTF is not enforcing the already weakened standards in that technical leaflet.  They have stated many times that they are giving manufacturers a break for awhile because it turned out to be unexpectedly challenging for some factories to meet the standards they had proposed.

I can also state for a fact that players around 1,000 rating points better than you dislike these balls intensely owing to bad bounces and deviations from round behavior (our current national champion, a friend of mine).  And then there is one who is a world champion.

http://tabletennista.com/2015/2/ding-ning-not-yet-fully-adapted-to-the-plastic-ball-video/?utm_source=facebook&utm_term=ding-ning-not-yet-fully-adapted-to-the-plastic-ball-video&utm_campaign=fb-tta" rel="nofollow - http://tabletennista.com/2015/2/ding-ning-not-yet-fully-adapted-to-the-plastic-ball-video/?utm_source=facebook&utm_term=ding-ning-not-yet-fully-adapted-to-the-plastic-ball-video&utm_campaign=fb-tta


I'm attesting to what the available empirical data shows, which is that the plastic balls meet ITTF specs and if anything significantly improves on consistency.

Also, from your link Ding Ning attributes the loss to psychology and only added:

My overall feeling was good at the start. I was able to find the right approach to the new ball. But, during fierce confrontations, there could be some errors. I don’t know why there are those mistakes. After going through more matches will I be able to adapt

Hardly a ringing endorsement for your bias on this matter.


-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 5:13pm
Originally posted by hookumsnivy hookumsnivy wrote:

I don't know if it's that they're not round (some aren't), or if they develop soft spots over time, but I played with the joola 40+ POS at my last tournament and I had some very odd bounces.  I wasn't the only person complaining about the weird bounces at the tournament so I know it wasn't just me.

If these pass the ITTF tests, then there is a problem with either the requirements or the testing procedures.  Adjusting to a lower bounce, less spin and less speed is easy.  The randomness of some bounces is not something I'll ever get used to.  I've used seamless balls for weeks without questioning the bounce, but using Joola balls that had been used for a day or 2 was very aggravating.


It's interesting these "random" bounces tend to decrease as people get used to it.

The Joola balls are DHS which have the lower bounce. The seamless don't.


-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 5:39pm
The point is AgentHEX that at the level at which you play, it is not surprising that you found not a lot to be different, since the issues with these balls would rarely matter for the shots that you hit.

There is no doubt that these seamed balls behave differently, and many of them wobble.  And there are quantitative data that showed a large number with unacceptable veer.  Now, take that out of the mix, only play with the round ones, there are still things you need to adjust to.  Again EVERYBODY has said that.  SO why are you trolling the thread?




Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 6:07pm
Despite what you might automatically assume of anyone who disagrees I'm not that much lower level than you.

> And there are quantitative data that showed a large number with unacceptable veer.

Then show it.

> SO why are you trolling the thread?

No, disagreeing with you and being right about it is not "trolling", this is trolling:

> The point is AgentHEX that at the level at which you play, it is not surprising that you found not a lot to be different





-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: roundrobin
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 6:24pm
Ban the troll.  Peace on Earth.






-------------
Current USATT Rating: 2181
Argentina National Team Member, 1985-1986.
Current Club: Los Angeles Table Tennis Association.
My Setup: Yinhe Q1 / T64 2.1 black / Saviga V 0.5mm red



Posted By: BH-Man
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 9:02pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:



I can also state for a fact that players around 1,000 rating points better than you dislike these balls intensely owing to bad bounces and deviations from round behavior (our current national champion, a friend of mine).  And then there is one who is a world champion.
 
After my last few tourneys, just about anyone in our sport is now 1000 ratings points better than me and I can tell the world personally that the seamed Poly Ball in question has so many bad bounces that it simply makes you not want to play the sport that uses this ball. I gripe about lighting conditions all the time, but those issues of the venue are relatively fixed (unless the bad contrast is behind the player and he moves) and equal effect for both players as they chance sides.
 
I have been vocal enough in the past over this one brand of ball and I spewed out enough bad words last weekend to last a long time. I'll just summarized that this brand, and others of same seamed type from this factory are a serious de-motivator. I feel like I play 1600ish or lower with this seamed ball, several levels below what I would play using a cel ball.
 
I had in Decemer (or late Nov) a very terrible day at Boston TTC whose memebrs decided to rain down on the club in celebration by opening new boxes of these balls and play them in the club proud to be among the first clubs using a new Poly ball ITTF approved on the street. I failed to win a match that day except one or two vs an opponent 700-800 ratings points lower rated player... and I played 7 hours and who knows how many dozens of matches. I played maybe 1500 level that day. Timing all out of sorts with the bad bounce I didnt realize back then
 
Next day I drove 5 hrs through traffic to NYC for my NYC adventure I posted on the forums. I went with UpsideDownCarl adn PP Holic to Robert Chen TTC. I played the "master" lost at duece in 5th using a celluloid ball. I played at least 2000 level that night vs him. VS PP Holic, I lost a 5 set game 11-9 in 5th) and then another 5 setter at duece with a banged up knee and all that physical load from the last few days and still played around 1900 level vs him. (PP Holic has been training... and I haven't !!) We used Nexy and Yinhe ball, mostly PP Holic's Yinhe, I still have it :)
 
Point is HOW can I play like crap starting physically fresh with Seamed Poly then next day beat down tired and after a fresh 5 hrs in car in traffic jams jump right out of car and play many levels better with seamless poly ball???!!!
 
Makes no sense if the playing conditions and circumstances were similar, what was different was ball, and me being in 4 times worse shape the day I played better. I STILL played many levels better.
 
I am convinced the seamed Poly Ball bounce is the factor in my missed shots and poor performances. maybe call it my inability to adapt to the bad bounce of poly ball, whatever, the seamed Poly balls need to go into the pong robot and stay there until they improve to an aceptable standard.


-------------
Korea Foreign Table Tennis Club
Search for us on Facebook: koreaforeignttc


Posted By: BH-Man
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 9:05pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Originally posted by bogeyhunter bogeyhunter wrote:

If it has less spin or even too much spin or not durable, it still ok all players can adjust but bad bounce is something will make you want to quit.


+ 1 million
 
NO, you are sugar-coating it Baal.
 
Minimum + 10 trillion.
 
Now if we get anywhere near that many views on a vid we create going gorilla camera style visiting clubs and weeding out the bad bouncing balls and let USATT post it, our national team could afford a new training center, a jacuzzi, and 10 more hired coaches.
 
EDIT: I feel same in comments above, I do NOT like it that we have a new ball that is harder to spin and slower overall, but the new ball is here and not gunna go away. Then you add in an inconsistent bounce that is impossible to predict, those errors on balls that would be a sure fired winner or pressure are suddenly silly errors... Please Child... it isn't table tennis if you just bunt the ball and opponent makes miss over miss not coping with a crazy bounce.


-------------
Korea Foreign Table Tennis Club
Search for us on Facebook: koreaforeignttc


Posted By: BH-Man
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 9:16pm
Originally posted by hookumsnivy hookumsnivy wrote:

I don't know if it's that they're not round (some aren't), or if they develop soft spots over time, but I played with the joola 40+ POS at my last tournament and I had some very odd bounces.  I wasn't the only person complaining about the weird bounces at the tournament so I know it wasn't just me.

If these pass the ITTF tests, then there is a problem with either the requirements or the testing procedures.  Adjusting to a lower bounce, less spin and less speed is easy.  The randomness of some bounces is not something I'll ever get used to.  I've used seamless balls for weeks without questioning the bounce, but using Joola balls that had been used for a day or 2 was very aggravating.
 
You might have been hearing me from several tables over.
 
I am NOT ashamed to lose to Dustin. Ditto with Marc. He is a better player than me right now, even if his rating is lower. I am not upset at all to lose vs him, I saw it coming. I am just upset about the way I couldn't make some really basic shots that I would never miss blindfolded.
 
I didnt lose to anyone else below that level, but it was damn close.
 
You are very kind to use only initials POS, it is unfortunate in Amercan English that one feels compelled to use much stronger salty language to express sincere strong feelings on the matter. I was a little more candid, but that is over. Tourneys announce what ball they will use for tourneys ahead of time and now I know what is what, it is my fault if I attend a tourney using a seamed ball that bounces bad.
 
Still, I saw you in action and some others, I feel proud to see YOUNGER players entering this sport in more numbers enjoying themselves and getting better.


-------------
Korea Foreign Table Tennis Club
Search for us on Facebook: koreaforeignttc


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 9:18pm
Originally posted by BH-Man BH-Man wrote:

Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Originally posted by bogeyhunter bogeyhunter wrote:

If it has less spin or even too much spin or not durable, it still ok all players can adjust but bad bounce is something will make you want to quit.


+ 1 million
 
NO, you are sugar-coating it Baal.
 
Minimum + 10 trillion.
 
Now if we get anywhere near that many views on a vid we create going gorilla camera style visiting clubs and weeding out the bad bouncing balls and let USATT post it, our national team could afford a new training center, a jacuzzi, and 10 more hired coaches.
 
EDIT: I feel same in comments above, I do NOT like it that we have a new ball that is harder to spin and slower overall, but the new ball is here and not gunna go away. Then you add in an inconsistent bounce that is impossible to predict, those errors on balls that would be a sure fired winner or pressure are suddenly silly errors... Please Child... it isn't table tennis if you just bunt the ball and opponent makes miss over miss not coping with a crazy bounce.


If the bounce is indeed that random then surely it would be easy to measure or demonstrate.

Also, it seems that the opinions of those at my level or below are now automatically disqualified, which would include the overwhelming majority of the forum and you as well.



-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 9:36pm
I for one never said that the bounce is random.  I said too many of the balls deviate from roundness. (And if you play with those, yes strange things happen). That is not conjecture, that is fact.  So, if one excludes those, which is easy enough to do by simply spinning it on the table, and which I always do, one is left with balls that 40+ seamed balls that usually bounce lower than celluloid or seamless.  That is also a fact.  It is not a random effect but it requires considerable adjustment, and even with adjustment, people find more balls with heavy spin going underneath their racket so they have no chance at all.  Most people don't like it, and this is true for really good players and not so good players.  In fact, players at a level where there is more spin in longer rallies complain more. 

One person here stands out, as usual, in denying all this.  People's opinions are not automatically disqualified but these opinions can be wacky -- and our man has a history.

Any, I gave the OP my advice on a way to get a handle on these ball that works reasonably well, and I have made my opinions about these various balls play pretty well known over the last year.  I think my observations have been pretty well born out by a lot of people since then. 




Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 9:59pm
There were numerous claims above that the ball bounces inconsistently including the one I replied to.

The specific claim that balls are out of round is not borne by evidence I can see, and rejected by the meticulous tests above that I have seen. However there's a noticeable tendency for players of all calibers to blame deviations in form on something other than themselves, and therefore don't take the requisite steps to make adjustments to solve problems.

In topspin rally practice I usually have an advantage over ~2k partners so please be specific at what point this oddball behavior becomes apparent. I get the impression that a lot of club players tend to swing out of habit with a fixed stance (which assumes a certain trajectory, ostensibly one they're used to) instead of moving with the ball. Much of the problem isn't even inadequate lift per se esp closer to the table since the bounce difference is measured in few mm, but rather with the same swing/timing as the cell ball there's a tendency to come up and over the ball too early which is why it's going into the net. That's why it's key to studiously follow the trajectory and where contact occurs on the ball. With that the problem tends to the solve itself; thinking about just the "lift" is more of shortcut to force focus onto the interception. It follows the more habits someone has to break the harder making the adjustment becomes.

I'll let other readers decide whether special qualifications are necessary for not going along with popular opinion here.


-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 10:14pm
If you can read, you will have seen the answers to your comments in stuff I wrote earlier including the evidence from veer tests, and some of the shots where things can get dicey if you are not used to these things.

Other readers have already decided about you, I'm afraid.  My inbox frequently gets filled.

 


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 10:18pm
Debater's veer tests show the plastic balls are well within ITTF spec. If you're referring to something else, then please show it.


-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 11:08pm
No.  His data showed that veers were not in spec.   I have the excel with his raw data in front of me (which he sent to me because we discussed at length how to carry out these tests over a period of months).  He tested 9 celluloid balls, and none of them failed in veer.  He tested 24 Joola 40+ and 8 balls failed. 

He also found that out of 24 balls 40+ in his sample, only 4 met the January 2016 specs for weight, a pattern i have confirmed for DHS and Joola.

Debater also checked sphericity using calipers.  They met the relaxed specs (now) but he found that the the deviation from sphericity (difference in max vs. min diameters) was much substantially greater in 40+ balls, averaging 0.103 mm vs. 0.056 mm for celluloid.  The standard deviation of the sample of 40+ was also greater than for celluloid, even though his sample of plastic was twice as large.    However that was within specs.  As others have mentioned, deviations on the inside of the ball can give strange behavior that you wouldn't see with calipers, but which ought to show up when you simply spin the ball on the table.

The other day we had a box of new Butterfly seamed 40+ balls.  A very nice looking box of 12 with the funny pink logo on the ball.  These balls were made in Feb 2015.  Out of the 12, we found about half would be useable based on just spinning on the table (a very useful test for effective roundness).  I have to say, in fairness, that once we found some round ones, we actually found them to be more playable than seamed balls had been in the past.  So given that they have another 9 months to get their act together, I am a now more optimistic that things will improve some.  


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 11:26pm
The relevant video is here:

http://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=26817" rel="nofollow - http://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=26817

The results were more marginal than I recall but nonetheless pass spec.

It's part 6 but I recommend watching the entirety of the quite thorough series.

-
It's also worth mentioning the roundness spec is tighter for the plastic ball than celluloid.




-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 11:36pm
The thing is, the balls take getting used to even if you get past the roundness issues.  I am not going to call it random bounces because when you are careful to select balls that don't look like an egg when you spin them on the table things are fairly reproducible.  However, it is reproducibly different in some ways than ball behavior you see with cellulloid, seamless, or Nittaku Premium.  This is not conjecture.  This is fact.

The other thing is that Debater tested new balls, that had not been played with.  The seamed Chinese balls have durability problems and they deform during play in ways that cause them to behave strangely after they have been used for awhile.


Posted By: LOG1C1AN
Date Posted: 03/06/2015 at 11:57pm
I appreciate those that have the patience and aptitude to measure and test the exact specs of each ball. I'm sure the data will be very useful for the governing powers that be who make these decisions (as long as their true priority is what is best for the game and the players, and not just what is best for their wallets).

However, it does not take a scientist to play with a Joola / DHS 40+ for a few minutes, then switch to a XSF / Yinhe / Nexy 40+ and come to an easy conclusion as to which is the superior ball.


Posted By: larrytt
Date Posted: 03/07/2015 at 12:01am
I'm not sure if http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Table-Tennis/Features/2015/March/03/11-Questions" rel="nofollow - my words were read carefully. The pertinent part I wrote about the poly balls was:

"I think the ITTF jumped the gun here. Poly balls shouldn’t have been the norm until they were high quality, standardized, readily available, affordable, and with inexpensive but quality training balls for training. There are some quality poly balls now, but all have some of the problems above. Quality control isn’t very good yet – some of the balls just aren’t round, and take funny bounces."

I've actually used nearly all of the new types, including the seamless Xu Shaofa balls, which are the best at the moment. As I wrote above, "There are some quality poly balls now, but all have some of the problems above." In the case of the Xu Shaofa balls, we don't yet have inexpensive but quality training balls. (I'm told they are coming out now.) Also, they aren't that readily available yet in the U.S. - even Paddle Palace doesn't sell them, and they sell nearly everything. I've also used poly balls from Butterfly, JOOLA, DHS, and the Nittaku Premiums (both 3-star and 2-star) and Nittaku Shas. (I have each of these balls in my playing bag. Several are actually identical, made at the same factory with different brand names stamped on them.) When I said quality control isn't very good yet, I was speaking in general - the Xu Shaofa balls are probably the only ones so far that are consistently good, though the Premiums are also pretty good.
-Larry Hodges


-------------
Professional Table Tennis Coach & Writer
Member, USATT Hall of Fame
USATT National & ITTF Certified Coach
Former Chair, USATT Coaching Committee
www.TableTennisCoaching.com
www.MDTTC.com


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/07/2015 at 12:23am
Originally posted by LOG1C1AN LOG1C1AN wrote:

I appreciate those that have the patience and aptitude to measure and test the exact specs of each ball. I'm sure the data will be very useful for the governing powers that be who make these decisions (as long as their true priority is what is best for the game and the players, and not just what is best for their wallets).

However, it does not take a scientist to play with a Joola / DHS 40+ for a few minutes, then switch to a XSF / Yinhe / Nexy 40+ and come to an easy conclusion as to which is the superior ball.


The biggest diff with the DHS is the lower bounce. It effects differing players' way of taking the ball differently, but as it usually is in life those with greatest aversion to change are the most vocal.


-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: LOG1C1AN
Date Posted: 03/07/2015 at 12:33am
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

Originally posted by LOG1C1AN LOG1C1AN wrote:

I appreciate those that have the patience and aptitude to measure and test the exact specs of each ball. I'm sure the data will be very useful for the governing powers that be who make these decisions (as long as their true priority is what is best for the game and the players, and not just what is best for their wallets).

However, it does not take a scientist to play with a Joola / DHS 40+ for a few minutes, then switch to a XSF / Yinhe / Nexy 40+ and come to an easy conclusion as to which is the superior ball.


The biggest diff with the DHS is the lower bounce. It effects differing players' way of taking the ball differently, but as it usually is in life those with greatest aversion to change are the most vocal.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I was quite happy with the old celluloid balls. When the new 40+ balls came out I was initially resistant. The first ones I tried were just bad. Then I got hold of an XSF ball and immediately liked it. I actually like it better than celluloid now.

All the players at both clubs I frequent are experimenting with all of the new balls. Everyone, and I mean everyone I play with agrees that the XSF / Yinhe / Nexy seamless balls are by far the best of the new balls. Everyone also likes the Nittaku Premiums as a second choice, except for issues of price and availability. Already, the other seamed 40+ balls are only used when a player is prepping to play in a tournament that is going to use that particular ball.


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/07/2015 at 12:41am
If you watch the last video in the series linked above, the author also did some recorded subjective + "blind" tests.

I get that some people apparently really hate a low bounce, and it doesn't help that different manufacturers have differing rebounds. However a plurality of concurrent prevailing opinions online tend to be circlejerks.


-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: lineup32
Date Posted: 03/07/2015 at 1:28am
Originally posted by larrytt larrytt wrote:

I'm not sure if http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Table-Tennis/Features/2015/March/03/11-Questions" rel="nofollow - my words were read carefully. The pertinent part I wrote about the poly balls was:

"I think the ITTF jumped the gun here. Poly balls shouldn’t have been the norm until they were high quality, standardized, readily available, affordable, and with inexpensive but quality training balls for training. There are some quality poly balls now, but all have some of the problems above. Quality control isn’t very good yet – some of the balls just aren’t round, and take funny bounces."

I've actually used nearly all of the new types, including the seamless Xu Shaofa balls, which are the best at the moment. As I wrote above, "There are some quality poly balls now, but all have some of the problems above." In the case of the Xu Shaofa balls, we don't yet have inexpensive but quality training balls. (I'm told they are coming out now.) Also, they aren't that readily available yet in the U.S. - even Paddle Palace doesn't sell them, and they sell nearly everything. I've also used poly balls from Butterfly, JOOLA, DHS, and the Nittaku Premiums (both 3-star and 2-star) and Nittaku Shas. (I have each of these balls in my playing bag. Several are actually identical, made at the same factory with different brand names stamped on them.) When I said quality control isn't very good yet, I was speaking in general - the Xu Shaofa balls are probably the only ones so far that are consistently good, though the Premiums are also pretty good.
-Larry Hodges

Jump the gun, please, the ITTF only mandated specific international matches and specific poly balls in those tournaments.  Its the national associations such as the USATT and the various tournament directors within the USATT that have jumped the gun and mandated poly balls for various tournaments.
It's way early to be advancing the poly ball and the USATT should recognize that reality.     


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/07/2015 at 11:21am
Larry,  my quibble was with "readily available, affordable, and with inexpensive but quality training balls for training" in the context of seamless balls.  I would say all of those things are true for that class of balls.  It is true that Paddle Palace does not carry them, but they are very easy to find if you put a little effort into it -- unlike Nittaku Premium.  If you wanted to say that the seamless training balls really suck and that therefore I am a full of it, you might have a point, though.  I have no idea why Paddle Palace doesn't carry any of them, but Ping Pong Depot (used to be Table Tennis Pioneers) does, and many other places including Nexy USA.  I think poor decisions by Paddle Palace should not be used to judge the balls.

I agree completely that ITTF jumped the gun on this, and the current situation is terrible.  Like Logician, I have come to prefer the seamless over celluloid.  It is really a shame that didn't become the standard and maybe at some point it will.




Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/07/2015 at 7:17pm
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

Originally posted by LOG1C1AN LOG1C1AN wrote:

I appreciate those that have the patience and aptitude to measure and test the exact specs of each ball. I'm sure the data will be very useful for the governing powers that be who make these decisions (as long as their true priority is what is best for the game and the players, and not just what is best for their wallets).

However, it does not take a scientist to play with a Joola / DHS 40+ for a few minutes, then switch to a XSF / Yinhe / Nexy 40+ and come to an easy conclusion as to which is the superior ball.


The biggest diff with the DHS is the lower bounce. It effects differing players' way of taking the ball differently, but as it usually is in life those with greatest aversion to change are the most vocal.

I dunno.  The two things I heard from the North American Teams tournament was that the big issues were that the balls (Joola, but understood to be DHS made) broke far too often and that they would go out of round during play giving odd/weird bounces.  Little was made of the low bounce - true and that fact may be.  I could be that the low bounce is actually the third largest difference.


-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX


Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/07/2015 at 7:22pm
Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:


Jump the gun, please, the ITTF only mandated specific international matches and specific poly balls in those tournaments.  Its the national associations such as the USATT and the various tournament directors within the USATT that have jumped the gun and mandated poly balls for various tournaments.
It's way early to be advancing the poly ball and the USATT should recognize that reality.     

No, the ITTF jumped the gun.   They should understand that national organizations must provide an environment suitable for the top national players and that the national organizations will be experienceing a LOT of pressure to stay in lockstep with the ITTF.  

If you read the rational behind the USATT's decision to use the Nittaku Premium 40+ at that 2014 Nationals, it was heavily weighed toward benefiting those players who might play internationally.  We can certainly blame the USATT for that as well, but that doesn't let the ITTF off the hook IMO.  Especially considering that they inked a sponsorship deal with DHS whose 40+ ball are basically crap.

"Jump the gun" is a fair criticism of the ITTF IMO.



-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX


Posted By: roundrobin
Date Posted: 03/07/2015 at 8:06pm
The entire plastic ball affair is in one word "disgusting". I find it frustrating trying to get used to all the different types of approved balls out there, and the fact that it's outrageously expensive trying to stock enough training balls of all these different types for our junior programs. Celluloid ball makers should start making 40+ sized balls for training purposes and sell them for cheap. I bet they will work very well.



-------------
Current USATT Rating: 2181
Argentina National Team Member, 1985-1986.
Current Club: Los Angeles Table Tennis Association.
My Setup: Yinhe Q1 / T64 2.1 black / Saviga V 0.5mm red



Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/07/2015 at 8:13pm
Originally posted by roundrobin roundrobin wrote:

The entire plastic ball affair is in one word "disgusting". I find it frustrating trying to get used to all the different types of approved balls out there, and the fact that it's outrageously expensive trying to stock enough training balls of all
these different types for our junior programs. Celluloid ball makers should start making 40+ sized balls for training purposes and sell them for cheap. I bet they will work very well.


That's an interesting point.  It is perfectly legal to make a celluloid ball with the typical 40.2mm or so diameter see with 40+ balls.

Marketing might be tough though since they couldn't call them 40+.  They'd need to come up with some other clever name to make it clear that they are larger than the typical celluloid ball.


-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX


Posted By: pnachtwey
Date Posted: 03/07/2015 at 10:54pm
@wturber,  are the new plastic balls affecting your hard bat game much?  My hard bats are very light and my one plastic ball is slightly heavier than it should be a 2.77gm.   I can feel the difference in the impacts.

About the bad bounces.   I have mentioned before that the new seamless balls are made using a method called roto molding.   The mold is in a gimbol so it can be spun around different axes so the plastic is spread evenly on the inside.  This IS THE TRICK.   If the plastic is not distributed evenly the result is a wobbly ball and one that may bounce differently depending whether the thick or thin part of the ball makes contact with the table or the paddle for that matter.

Rotomolding is a very old technique but I don't know of a case where it had been applied to something where the tolerances are so critical and any uneven distribution of plastic will cause the problems you see.

My one Yinhe ball, that Cole slipped in with an order of Gambler balls, seems to have the plastic inside evenly distributed.  It is just a little heavier and the surface is a little rougher.   The surface of my Yinhe ball is a lot rougher than a normal ball.  I think that is because the mold didn't get hot enough to let the plastic particles melt thoroughly and some granularity remained.
http://www.sarmi-rotomolding.com/rotomolding_process
 




-------------
I TT therefore I am


Posted By: lineup32
Date Posted: 03/07/2015 at 11:06pm
Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:

Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:


Jump the gun, please, the ITTF only mandated specific international matches and specific poly balls in those tournaments.  Its the national associations such as the USATT and the various tournament directors within the USATT that have jumped the gun and mandated poly balls for various tournaments.
It's way early to be advancing the poly ball and the USATT should recognize that reality.     

No, the ITTF jumped the gun.   They should understand that national organizations must provide an environment suitable for the top national players and that the national organizations will be experienceing a LOT of pressure to stay in lockstep with the ITTF.  

If you read the rational behind the USATT's decision to use the Nittaku Premium 40+ at that 2014 Nationals, it was heavily weighed toward benefiting those players who might play internationally.  We can certainly blame the USATT for that as well, but that doesn't let the ITTF off the hook IMO.  Especially considering that they inked a sponsorship deal with DHS whose 40+ ball are basically crap.

"Jump the gun" is a fair criticism of the ITTF IMO.

ITTF has gone in the proper direction by being very specific as to what ball will be used at there sanctioned international tournaments for open and juniors.  As a result there is no confusion among international players as to what ball to use in training for any of these  important tournaments.

The DHS40+ is the  standard for open play at ITTF sanctioned international tournaments listed below but the USATT has recommended a ball that plays differently, the Nittaku Premium 40+, its very expensive, difficult to buy in any volume, has no lower priced training  balls available and offers the elite players no real time training/experience for international ITTF tournaments that will be using the DHS+40. So exactly how does this help the US elite player in international competition? none.

After Tuesday 1st July 2014 plastic balls will be used in the following events:

……….World Championships
……….World Junior Championships
……….World Cups (Men’s, Women’s and World Team Cup)
……….World Tour events including the World Tour Grand Finals
……….World Junior Circuit events including the World Junior Circuit Finals (except for the four specified tournament in 2014) 
……….World Cadet Challenge
……….ITTF-Continental Championships and ITTF-Continental Cups
……….Olympic Games including qualification tournaments
……….Youth Olympic Games including qualification tournaments (except 2014 Youth Olympic Games)

Frankly pointing fingers at the ITTF is not good enough for Larry H anymore as he sits on the board of USATT and has to start taking responsibility for what is happening on the U.S. TT landscape. 

One another issue, ITTF has made it clear that the 40C will be used as long as suppliers want to make it,  they are not making it illegal.  Those players and clubs that wish to continue playing with the 40C can and will do so without fear of it being declared illegal by the ITTF. 

http://www.ittf.com/stories/pictures/plastic_ball_12_08_14.pdf


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/07/2015 at 11:31pm
Originally posted by pnachtwey pnachtwey wrote:

@wturber,  are the new plastic balls affecting your hard bat game much?  My hard bats are very light and my one plastic ball is slightly heavier than it should be a 2.77gm.   I can feel the difference in the impacts.

About the bad bounces.   I have mentioned before that the new seamless balls are made using a method called roto molding.   The mold is in a gimbol so it can be spun around different axes so the plastic is spread evenly on the inside.  This IS THE TRICK.   If the plastic is not distributed evenly the result is a wobbly ball and one that may bounce differently depending whether the thick or thin part of the ball makes contact with the table or the paddle for that matter.

Rotomolding is a very old technique but I don't know of a case where it had been applied to something where the tolerances are so critical and any uneven distribution of plastic will cause the problems you see.

My one Yinhe ball, that Cole slipped in with an order of Gambler balls, seems to have the plastic inside evenly distributed.  It is just a little heavier and the surface is a little rougher.   The surface of my Yinhe ball is a lot rougher than a normal ball.  I think that is because the mold didn't get hot enough to let the plastic particles melt thoroughly and some granularity remained.
http://www.sarmi-rotomolding.com/rotomolding_process
 

40+ seamed balls are even heavier than the ball you have (2.79-2.83 is the range for those), except for Nittaku Premiums, which are almost always under 2.70. 

The roughness on the surface is a feature of all of the plastic balls and my guess is that it is intentional.


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/07/2015 at 11:37pm
Jay,  people may be complaining about a variety of things, but I still think that the low bounce is what gives problems even if people are not necessarily aware that this is messing them up.  Now, once you have gotten accustomed to that feature (to the extent it is possible), the thing that messes you up is if there is some sort of random behavior.  I have noticed, though, that this is less of an issue if you are really careful to check for roundness first. 

But as you say, during matches, the balls can go out of round.

I agree that ITTF messed up.  Thomas Kueneth has explained a few times why they decided to rush it through.   I certainly don't agree with the reasoning, but some might.

I think the current seamless ball should be the standard if we have to have plastic balls.


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 4:54am
Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:

Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

Originally posted by LOG1C1AN LOG1C1AN wrote:

I appreciate those that have the patience and aptitude to measure and test the exact specs of each ball. I'm sure the data will be very useful for the governing powers that be who make these decisions (as long as their true priority is what is best for the game and the players, and not just what is best for their wallets).

However, it does not take a scientist to play with a Joola / DHS 40+ for a few minutes, then switch to a XSF / Yinhe / Nexy 40+ and come to an easy conclusion as to which is the superior ball.


The biggest diff with the DHS is the lower bounce. It effects differing players' way of taking the ball differently, but as it usually is in life those with greatest aversion to change are the most vocal.

I dunno.  The two things I heard from the North American Teams tournament was that the big issues were that the balls (Joola, but understood to be DHS made) broke far too often and that they would go out of round during play giving odd/weird bounces.  Little was made of the low bounce - true and that fact may be.  I could be that the low bounce is actually the third largest difference.


I'm speaking to diff under ordinary conditions. I suppose if a ball is broken/defective the distinction would be greater, but I haven't heard of going out of round after playing, just something to check for beforehand.

Frankly the most disappointing aspect for me is that the ratio of whinging to problem solving is so high. Many folks perhaps reasonably complain that they play different, but instead of figuring out why and doing what is possible we end up with mountains of lament about something no one here is a position to revert anyway. 

-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 9:13am
"Whinging". Speaks for itself. Tournament players are stating issues and a non-tournament player says they are whinging and should suck it up, which is actually what most of them are doing because they have no choice. But people with other outlets for their effort are trying trying the kinds of things that make sense to tournament TT players.

In reality, most tournament players including the purported whingers have practiced extensively with these balls when they have the means to accept the breakage rates. I have heard that these seamed balls have been been boycotted in China because of their durability issues. Joola is rumored to have switched production plants to improve the balls (that is what they told the owner of my club). Many people have pushed for use of the seamed balls which play far better and closer to the old balls. All whinging but
one by people who actually play with these balls.

The problem is that the Chinese seamed balls give an advantage to the player who is willing to attack first and hard as well as to players who play some distance from the table. However, since this is the dominant paradigm in table tennis anyway, they hardly affect the results of most matches. They just shorten the rallies on occasions when the ball is harder to track.

-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Cybershape Carbon
FH/BH: H3P 41D.
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes. No time to train...


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 10:48am
1.  People who really hate the seamed 40+ balls but who are ok with playing with seamless or Nittaku Premium 40+ balls (on purely playing criteria) are not resistant to change.  They are resistant to balls that have made playing a lot less fun.  I am not alone in that group.  In fact, I exclusively use the new balls, but I avoid Chinese seamed balls when it is practical. 

2.  The new balls cost 2-3 fold more than celluloid.  That is a rational basis for a complaint about a ball with significant durability issues.

3.  Speaking for myself, the outcomes against people I play are the same with any of these balls.  So it's not a matter of feeling like they are some big disadvantage. 

This is all pretty obvious, and I don't even know why there is a discussion about this, since it is painfully clear and has been from the start that playing with Chinese seamed balls is different in key ways to playing with celluloid, seamless or the good (but expensive and hard to find) Nittakus.

It was certainly clear enough to the guy who started this thread, and everybody but one person who has commented on it.





Posted By: BH-Man
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 11:56am
Even if the new balls cost 2-3 times what they should... if the bounce is true, we can cope with it well enough, even if we don't care for hte extra mm in size and less spin/pace.
 
Baal nailed it, there is NO JOY in playing a TT match using the current crop of seamed Poly Balls. The irregular bounce and strange behavior of the balls does NOTHING but tick you off, obviously no joy in that.
 
That is the biggest and most important thing. Balls breaking about every match could tick you off too, but the bounce of the seamed Poly ball is rediculous. These balls are obviously NOT fit for competition. They should be decertified for competition and used as training balls at players' risk.
 
I can live with the reduced spin, pace, and possible increased breakage. (Heck, you could break a cell ball too by hitting hard), but the BOUNCE of these seamed Poly Balls has GOT TO GO, like ASAP. Enough of us players are NOT DEMANDING an acceptably performing ball.
 
Many clubs feel like they are in a hard place. They get free SEAMED Poly Balls or a sweethart deal on balls for tourneys, but the performance of these things... I wouldn't want to play even if I GOT PAID to play using these seamed Poly Balls in a tourney. Whatever Big-Time 4 Star tourneys and our premiere events are "Locked In" by a sponsorship or contractual obligation and that situation is a pity. (Pity that a ball that is more unpredictable than a ONE STAR Training ball is the official ball) Good on the tourneys that selected Nittaku Premium 40+, a true bouncing ball. I don't blame a club or a director of a huge tourney for making a deal to get free balls for th etourney or club, that is looking out for best interests, but the choice of the ball is very unfortunate.
 
It just isn't Table Tennis IMO playing a match with these seamed Poly balls with the lousy bounce. It isn't just me, there are lots of players and forum members who feel this way. I am just the one making an exclaimation point about it.
 
We as Table Tennis enthusiasts should DEMAND BETTER than the performance of these seamed Poly balls. Market forces will influence the market if enough of the market refuses to play with these seamed Poly Balls.
 
I mean you wouldn't play a serious basketball game with a basketball that has an erratic bounce causing dribbling errors and unforced turnovers... and would break 1-2 times during the game, would you play basketball with such a ball? Would it be serious competitive basketball playing the sport with such a ball? Would our stars of that sport keep a straight face while marketing that kind of ball? Players would demand a better ball and refuse to play with such a ball.
 
Why is Table tennis any different?


-------------
Korea Foreign Table Tennis Club
Search for us on Facebook: koreaforeignttc


Posted By: lineup32
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 1:02pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

1.  People who really hate the seamed 40+ balls but who are ok with playing with seamless or Nittaku Premium 40+ balls (on purely playing criteria) are not resistant to change.  They are resistant to balls that have made playing a lot less fun.  I am not alone in that group.  In fact, I exclusively use the new balls, but I avoid Chinese seamed balls when it is practical. 

2.  The new balls cost 2-3 fold more than celluloid.  That is a rational basis for a complaint about a ball with significant durability issues.

3.  Speaking for myself, the outcomes against people I play are the same with any of these balls.  So it's not a matter of feeling like they are some big disadvantage. 

This is all pretty obvious, and I don't even know why there is a discussion about this, since it is painfully clear and has been from the start that playing with Chinese seamed balls is different in key ways to playing with celluloid, seamless or the good (but expensive and hard to find) Nittakus.

It was certainly clear enough to the guy who started this thread, and everybody but one person who has commented on it.


The top players in the world don't seem to be complaining or demanding different balls the biggest dissatisfaction seems to be coming from early adoptee recreation players in spite of ITTF only mandating DHS40+ balls for high level international competition.  Many players decided not to be an early adoptee of the poly balls and based on the endless complaining about various balls from clubs and players on this site that has turned out to be a good decision certainly less expensive.  


Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 1:03pm
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

>
"Never been stated"
http://www.ittf.com/stories/pictures/T3_Ball_forBoD2014_final.pdf

If anyone could be bothered to read the actual doc the "minimal standard" <2016 bounce spec lower bound is only 3mm out of 240mm less than 2016, or ~1%. The plastic ball (the worst possible DHS tested) also had much more consistent bounce than celluloid.


When we play a match, we don't have a constant rotation of balls as in the drop tests.  We play with but one - unless is is a seamed 40+ Chinese ball - then it might take two or more.

Nonetheless, for a simple drop test, the bounce consistencies are fairly similar.  Celluloid is not categorically worse.  The drop device used by our friend at the Preston Table Tennis club was/is flawed. Celluloid balls actually "released" at a lower point sometimes.  They did not always drop cleanly through the hole.  This is clearly visible in the videos he posted. 

I performed drop tests using a modified mousetrap as a "trap door" to drop the balls.  I also dropped the balls onto a surface that was closer to the ITTF spec - being solid steel more than one half inch thick.   Note that with something close to spec that all balls bounce to height averages within the ITTF spec.

Sometimes my device release system would cause a small bounce upwards of 1-2mm or the ball might touch my contraption at some point in the bounce.  I counted only drops that were perfectly clean.


DHS 3 star Celluloid (5 balls in rotation)            Bounce Height cm
Average Height 25.45
High Bounce 25.80
Low Bounce 25.05
Bounce Spread 0.75


Xushaoufu 3 Star Seamless 40+ (5 balls in rotation)
Average Height 25.96
High Bounce 26.20
Low Bounce 25.65
Bounce Spread 0.55


Nittaku Premium 40+ (6 balls in rotation)
Average Height 25.43
High Bounce 25.75
Low Bounce 25.00
Bounce Spread 0.75


Gambler 3 Star Platinum Celluloid (6 balls in rotation)
Average Height 25.21
High Bounce 25.40
Low Bounce 24.95
Bounce Spread 0.45


DHS 3 star 40+ (6 balls in rotation)
Average Height 24.45
High Bounce 24.75
Low Bounce 24.10
Bounce Spread 0.65
 






-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX


Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 1:05pm
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

Originally posted by LOG1C1AN LOG1C1AN wrote:

Sorry, but no one can "get used to" a ball that is not round and therefore does not bounce consistently.


They're round and bounce consistently as empirically tested by a user on OOAK. The "inconsistency" is most likely a matter of mistaken judgment by players who can't own up to their errors.


An experienced player I know who played at the North American Teams event this last Thanksgiving observed that the balls would frequently start out round but would go out of round during match play.


-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX


Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 1:08pm
Originally posted by pnachtwey pnachtwey wrote:

I don't understand how the balls can be out of round.  The balls are molded in a mold.  What can be in doubt is how even the plastic is distributed on the inside.  The technique is called roto molding.



I suspect some reports of being "out of round" could be mis-reported cases of being out of balance.  The typical test uses some form of spinning the ball and observing the wobble.  Uneven weight distribution can cause such a wobble.  Also, I suspect bad bounces can be caused by an uneven wall thickness as well as in flight wobbling of a ball.


-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX


Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 1:26pm
Originally posted by pnachtwey pnachtwey wrote:

@wturber,  are the new plastic balls affecting your hard bat game much? 



I haven't used the 40+ ball much with the exception of playing in the 2014 Nationals with the NP40+ ball.  It took me about two hours to begin to feel comfortable with the tournament conditions, but that is not only the ball, but the venue.  That seemed a bit longer than usual. 

My subjective impression of the np40+ ball is that its bounce is not "dynamic".  I really have to work harder with it to generate faster shots.  I felt like I caught up to it easier when chopping against inverted loopers.  If it becomes the new standard, I may actually consider changing rubber to something slightly faster to get back to where I am with celluloid.  My results at the Nationals were very uneven.  But I don't think that had anything to do with the np40+ ball.  It was just me, my getting ill, and also playing with that 38mm celluloid ball in a sandpaper event.

Beyond the Nationals, my experience is limited since we are still using celluloid for the most part at our club.




-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 1:37pm
Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:



I suspect some reports of being "out of round" could be mis-reported cases of being out of balance.  The typical test uses some form of spinning the ball and observing the wobble.  Uneven weight distribution can cause such a wobble.  Also, I suspect bad bounces can be caused by an uneven wall thickness as well as in flight wobbling of a ball.


Yes, I think this is mostly what is happening for reasons PN mentioned.  In fact, when I say "not round" what I mean is they wobble in spin tests and also in the air a bit.  I suppose I should be more precise.

With that said, when Debater measured a bunch with calipers, there was a slightly greater absolute difference between maximum and minimum diameters with Joola 40+ compared to Joola celluloid.  I doubt it would be enough to account for the more or less ridiculous wobble you sometimes see in seamed plastic balls out of the box.  Seamed 40+ balls may also change their shape a bit after very hard shots and then go out of round, whereas seamless tend to shatter.


Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 1:41pm
Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:

ITTF has gone in the proper direction by being very specific as to what ball will be used at there sanctioned international tournaments for open and juniors.  As a result there is no confusion among international players as to what ball to use in training for any of these  important tournaments.


Proper direction?  That's mandated by ITTF rule.  BTW, it wasn't properly followed in at least one ITTF sanctioned tournament that used Nittaku balls.

Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:

The DHS40+ is the  standard for open play at ITTF sanctioned international tournaments listed below but the USATT has recommended a ball that plays differently, the Nittaku Premium 40+, its very expensive, difficult to buy in any volume, has no lower priced training  balls available and offers the elite players no real time training/experience for international ITTF tournaments that will be using the DHS+40. So exactly how does this help the US elite player in international competition? none.

Yes.  The USATT had sponsorship deals already in place.  And yes, the NP40+ ball plays differently from the DHS 40+.  So yes, I agree that the USATT decision is highly questionable. 

But keep in mind that both balls are authorized by the ITTF.  The ITTF has unleashed the 40+ ball on the table tennis world well before that group of balls has fairly consistent play between brands as we see with celluloid balls.  This has been and is disruptive precisely because there are many different existing financial relationships and sponsorship deals and this will cause many players to have to adjust to a wider range of playing differences and will further have a trickle down affect on the non-international player as National associations mandate the use of some 40+ ball regardless of whether or not it is crap.

Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:

One another issue, ITTF has made it clear that the 40C will be used as long as suppliers want to make it,  they are not making it illegal.  Those players and clubs that wish to continue playing with the 40C can and will do so without fear of it being declared illegal by the ITTF. 

http://www.ittf.com/stories/pictures/plastic_ball_12_08_14.pdf

The ITTF does not and never has had the ability to make laws/rules for national organizations.  But their actions are highly influential.  They should not act as though this is not true.  Heck,  the USATT is enforcing VOC testing of rackets even though they have no such rule on the books. 


-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 1:41pm
Another version of the bounce test is to drop two balls from the same height and then see how long it takes before the balls stop oscillating up and down.  The seamless balls will bounce longer than seamed balls 100% of the time.

I wouldn't mind the USATT decision to mandate the Nittaku Premium if we could buy the damned things, since it is a much better ball to play with.  But you can't buy the damned things!!!!!!!!!

(Also, price and durability not great).


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 1:46pm
Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:


I haven't used the 40+ ball much with the exception of playing in the 2014 Nationals with the NP40+ ball. 
My subjective impression of the np40+ ball is that its bounce is not "dynamic".  I really have to work harder with it to generate faster shots.


They are bigger.  I would bet you anything if you had a 40+ celluloid ball you would feel the same thing.  (Of course that ball does not exist).

In terms of bounce during free play, the np40+ is closest to celluloid.  I base that on many many many hours of accumulated experience with these balls.  But of course, it does not play exactly like celluloid.


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 1:49pm
Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:

Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

1.  People who really hate the seamed 40+ balls but who are ok with playing with seamless or Nittaku Premium 40+ balls (on purely playing criteria) are not resistant to change.  They are resistant to balls that have made playing a lot less fun.  I am not alone in that group.  In fact, I exclusively use the new balls, but I avoid Chinese seamed balls when it is practical. 

2.  The new balls cost 2-3 fold more than celluloid.  That is a rational basis for a complaint about a ball with significant durability issues.

3.  Speaking for myself, the outcomes against people I play are the same with any of these balls.  So it's not a matter of feeling like they are some big disadvantage. 

This is all pretty obvious, and I don't even know why there is a discussion about this, since it is painfully clear and has been from the start that playing with Chinese seamed balls is different in key ways to playing with celluloid, seamless or the good (but expensive and hard to find) Nittakus.

It was certainly clear enough to the guy who started this thread, and everybody but one person who has commented on it.


The top players in the world don't seem to be complaining or demanding different balls the biggest dissatisfaction seems to be coming from early adoptee recreation players in spite of ITTF only mandating DHS40+ balls for high level international competition.  Many players decided not to be an early adoptee of the poly balls and based on the endless complaining about various balls from clubs and players on this site that has turned out to be a good decision certainly less expensive.  


Not quite true.  The top players did complain a lot but they also know they have to adjust.  Since it is a done deal, since ITTF has a contract with DHS, they have no influence.  So they concern themselves with other things.  They know that ITTF has never really listened to their opinions.

Since the material has changed, the sound of the ball also changed." Ma Long said. Aside from that, Ma Long and Zhang Jike both agreed on the difference on how the ball travels. Zhang Jike said that when he tries to hit the ball, it always touches the sides or bottom part of his racket, admitting some instabilities. (from interview in October 2014).


Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 1:53pm
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:


I'm speaking to diff under ordinary conditions. I suppose if a ball is broken/defective the distinction would be greater, but I haven't heard of going out of round after playing, just something to check for beforehand.

Isn't tournament play "ordinary?"  I and others have mentioned the DHS (and its re-branded variants) going out of round before.

The player I spoke of does a nifty little trick where he spins the ball off his racket so that it drops onto his fingernails and continues to spin.  You can hear and see out of round (or out of balance as the case may be) balls skitter/chatter on his nails.  He asserts that the Joola balls used would sometimes go out of round in the middle of a match.  I'm inclined to believe him.

Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:


Frankly the most disappointing aspect for me is that the ratio of whinging to problem solving is so high. Many folks perhaps reasonably complain that they play different, but instead of figuring out why and doing what is possible we end up with mountains of lament about something no one here is a position to revert anyway. 


What I find disappointing the the degree to which some people are willing to apologize for the way the ITTF has mishandled this such that players, clubs and associations now must do some "problem solving."

Baal has given many good solutions.

1) Pick the better ball - first choice Xushaufu, second NP40+.  But the problems is that these aren't what the ITTF is using in most international events.  So that's an incomplete solution.

2) If you must use a DHS or Double Hapiness ball, pre-select/test the balls for roundness.  That helps.  But the problem remains that these balls are about twice as likely to break.  Given that the balls are already premium priced and more likely to break, tossing brand new balls out as unusable is a tough pill to swallow. There appears to be no solution to the higher price.

3) Unfortunately, nobody has come up with a good solution to the lack of low cost 40+ training balls.

Personally, I'm not whining about any of it.  I do complain on the forums and I am simply avoiding the mess in my club and personal play by continuing to use celluloid.  But as a tournament director it is a problem that I must struggle with and I don't like how the USATT and the ITTF have messed this up. 


-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX


Posted By: roundrobin
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 1:54pm
Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:



I haven't used the 40+ ball much with the exception of playing in the 2014 Nationals with the NP40+ ball.  It took me about two hours to begin to feel comfortable with the tournament conditions, but that is not only the ball, but the venue.  That seemed a bit longer than usual. 

My subjective impression of the np40+ ball is that its bounce is not "dynamic".  I really have to work harder with it to generate faster shots.  I felt like I caught up to it easier when chopping against inverted loopers.  If it becomes the new standard, I may actually consider changing rubber to something slightly faster to get back to where I am with celluloid.  My results at the Nationals were very uneven.  But I don't think that had anything to do with the np40+ ball.  It was just me, my getting ill, and also playing with that 38mm celluloid ball in a sandpaper event.

Beyond the Nationals, my experience is limited since we are still using celluloid for the most part at our club.




I played my second sanctioned tournament with the NP40+ ball a few days ago (won the Over 40 Singles and lost to Grace Yang in the Open in the 5th.)  The slower speed of NP40+ was really apparent under tough tournament conditions.  So much so, that now I've finally decided to change my setups completely... I am now using Tenergy max on my fh (instead of short pips) and added a thin sponge on my long pips.  Also I've changed my blade to a very oversized one to facilitate longer chopping strokes.




-------------
Current USATT Rating: 2181
Argentina National Team Member, 1985-1986.
Current Club: Los Angeles Table Tennis Association.
My Setup: Yinhe Q1 / T64 2.1 black / Saviga V 0.5mm red



Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 1:58pm
"Before the change of the ball, Ovtcharov's level was comparable with Boll's. But now after the change, it seems that Boll has exceeded his teammate in a considerable amount." http://tabletennista.com/player/liu-guoliang/" rel="nofollow - Liu Guoliang started. "In contrast, I believe that the effect of the new ball on http://tabletennista.com/player/dimitrij-ovtcharov/" rel="nofollow - Dimitrij Ovtcharov is bigger. I read a report before that such change will benefit a player like Ovtcharov. I felt that it was just a speculation. Actually, I saw quite a lot of unforced errors from Ovtcharov in the competition. Before, he has big movements, he has strength. But after the change, there has been problems in his adjustments on those aspects." Liu Guoliang concluded.

This is from an interview in late October.  Since then, these top players have only been training and playing with the balls they use in competition.




Posted By: roundrobin
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 2:01pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

"Before the change of the ball, Ovtcharov's level was comparable with Boll's. But now after the change, it seems that Boll has exceeded his teammate in a considerable amount." http://tabletennista.com/player/liu-guoliang/" rel="nofollow - Liu Guoliang started. "In contrast, I believe that the effect of the new ball on http://tabletennista.com/player/dimitrij-ovtcharov/" rel="nofollow - Dimitrij Ovtcharov is bigger. I read a report before that such change will benefit a player like Ovtcharov. I felt that it was just a speculation. Actually, I saw quite a lot of unforced errors from Ovtcharov in the competition. Before, he has big movements, he has strength. But after the change, there has been problems in his adjustments on those aspects." Liu Guoliang concluded.

This is from an interview in late October.  Since then, these top players have only been training and playing with the balls they use in competition.




Ovtcharov has said at the LA Open in 2013 that he felt the new plastic ball made playing against lower rated players more difficult for him when he tried it.  I guess it still affects him today...




-------------
Current USATT Rating: 2181
Argentina National Team Member, 1985-1986.
Current Club: Los Angeles Table Tennis Association.
My Setup: Yinhe Q1 / T64 2.1 black / Saviga V 0.5mm red



Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 2:01pm
From December 2014

"I didn’t feel that comfortable today; I’ve practiced with the plastic ball but it’s only my third tournament where we have used that ball", said Chuang Chih-Yuan. "I played in the Men’s World Cup and in the Euro-Asia Tournament with the new ball but I still need time to adjust."


Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 2:04pm
Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:

The top players in the world don't seem to be complaining or demanding different balls the biggest dissatisfaction seems to be coming from early adoptee recreation players in spite of ITTF only mandating DHS40+ balls for high level international competition.  Many players decided not to be an early adoptee of the poly balls and based on the endless complaining about various balls from clubs and players on this site that has turned out to be a good decision certainly less expensive.  


Right.  Most top players are sponsored, beholden to their national association, and/or otherwise influence by the politics of the situation.  Further, they seldom have to buy balls themselves.  And I also strongly suspect that they get to play with preselected balls most of the time.

So, in summary, top players almost surely experience fewer issues as a practical matter and have less incentive to complain and perhaps even disincentives to complain.  We should not be surprised if they complain less often or not at all.


-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX


Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 2:13pm
Originally posted by roundrobin roundrobin wrote:



Ovtcharov has said at the LA Open in 2013 that he felt the new plastic ball made playing against lower rated players more difficult for him when he tried it.  I guess it still affects him today...




Injecting randomness into the game makes "upset" victories more likely.


-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX


Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 2:31pm
FWIW, these are the results of testing single balls.  I'm not including the spread between bounces because it is not directly comparable to the testing of a series of balls.  These are all tests from multiple bounces of a single ball.

Nittaku SHA 40+ One Ball New

Average Height 24.56


Joola 40+ One Ball New

Average Height 24.39


DHS 3 Star Celluloid One Ball - well used

Average Height 25.38


Nittaku Premium 40+ One Ball – sounded cracked
Average Height 25.00


Nittaku Premium 40+ One Ball – well used

Average Height 25.48


-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 4:08pm
Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:

Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:


I'm speaking to diff under ordinary conditions. I suppose if a ball is broken/defective the distinction would be greater, but I haven't heard of going out of round after playing, just something to check for beforehand.

Isn't tournament play "ordinary?"  I and others have mentioned the DHS (and its re-branded variants) going out of round before.

The player I spoke of does a nifty little trick where he spins the ball off his racket so that it drops onto his fingernails and continues to spin.  You can hear and see out of round (or out of balance as the case may be) balls skitter/chatter on his nails.  He asserts that the Joola balls used would sometimes go out of round in the middle of a match.  I'm inclined to believe him.



Ordinary conditions here means not comparing an out-of-round/broken ball to a round/sound one.

Also note that of all the complaining this is the one person claiming they deform in play, so by Baal's logic it's automatic invalid sans any reality check. Or I guess not since it conveniently supports the plastic-ball-is-worse-than-hitler position.

Quote

Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:


Frankly the most disappointing aspect for me is that the ratio of whinging to problem solving is so high. Many folks perhaps reasonably complain that they play different, but instead of figuring out why and doing what is possible we end up with mountains of lament about something no one here is a position to revert anyway. 


What I find disappointing the the degree to which some people are willing to apologize for the way the ITTF has mishandled this such that players, clubs and associations now must do some "problem solving."

Baal has given many good solutions.

1) Pick the better ball - first choice Xushaufu, second NP40+.  But the problems is that these aren't what the ITTF is using in most international events.  So that's an incomplete solution.

2) If you must use a DHS or Double Hapiness ball, pre-select/test the balls for roundness.  That helps.  But the problem remains that these balls are about twice as likely to break.  Given that the balls are already premium priced and more likely to break, tossing brand new balls out as unusable is a tough pill to swallow. There appears to be no solution to the higher price.

3) Unfortunately, nobody has come up with a good solution to the lack of low cost 40+ training balls.

Personally, I'm not whining about any of it.  I do complain on the forums and I am simply avoiding the mess in my club and personal play by continuing to use celluloid.  But as a tournament director it is a problem that I must struggle with and I don't like how the USATT and the ITTF have messed this up. 


I've never had much of anything nice to say about the ITTF, but there's a certain situation that nobody present here is going to change other than by figuring out how to adjust their own play. Which reminds me, there's a couple threads going with everyone piling on an old man's supposed inability to accept present reality. I'll take these issues more seriously when/if it evolves beyond a popularity contest.


-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 5:41pm
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:


Ordinary conditions here means not comparing an out-of-round/broken ball to a round/sound one.


Most players do not test the balls for out-of-round.  It simply wasn't as big of an issue with celluloid.  It is unlikely to happen in tournaments either - except perhaps for the most elite events in the later rounds.

Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:


Also note that of all the complaining this is the one person claiming they deform in play, so by Baal's logic it's automatic invalid sans any reality check. Or I guess not since it conveniently supports the plastic-ball-is-worse-than-hitler position.


Firstly, that isn't Baal's logic.  Second, I've seen that report online from others and I've heard it offline from others.  It is not a unique report.

Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:



I've never had much of anything nice to say about the ITTF, but there's a certain situation that nobody present here is going to change other than by figuring out how to adjust their own play. Which reminds me, there's a couple threads going with everyone piling on an old man's supposed inability to accept present reality. I'll take these issues more seriously when/if it evolves beyond a popularity contest.


Well, I just pointed out to you that solutions have been offered.  That was hardly a complete list.  some of us have been promoting the use of the seamless balls since they are generally superior.  I've even written to Nittaku explaining how their SHA ball doesn't deserve the respect that the Nittaku brand confers - and have posted about it.

Your characterization of those complaining is flat out wrong.  Many of us are offering and doing what little we reasonably can to make dealing with the mess easier.  But that doesn't change the fact that it is a mess and that some of the balls are "junk" compared to the quality of balls that we are used to, that the ITTF bungled things, or make it somehow to not legitimate to complain about the situation.

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.


-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 6:35pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:

Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

1.  People who really hate the seamed 40+ balls but who are ok with playing with seamless or Nittaku Premium 40+ balls (on purely playing criteria) are not resistant to change.  They are resistant to balls that have made playing a lot less fun.  I am not alone in that group.  In fact, I exclusively use the new balls, but I avoid Chinese seamed balls when it is practical. 

2.  The new balls cost 2-3 fold more than celluloid.  That is a rational basis for a complaint about a ball with significant durability issues.

3.  Speaking for myself, the outcomes against people I play are the same with any of these balls.  So it's not a matter of feeling like they are some big disadvantage. 

This is all pretty obvious, and I don't even know why there is a discussion about this, since it is painfully clear and has been from the start that playing with Chinese seamed balls is different in key ways to playing with celluloid, seamless or the good (but expensive and hard to find) Nittakus.

It was certainly clear enough to the guy who started this thread, and everybody but one person who has commented on it.




The top players in the world don't seem to be complaining or demanding different balls the biggest dissatisfaction seems to be coming from early adoptee recreation players in spite of ITTF only mandating DHS40+ balls for high level international competition.  Many players decided not to be an early adoptee of the poly balls and based on the endless complaining about various balls from clubs and players on this site that has turned out to be a good decision certainly less expensive.  


Not quite true.  The top players did complain a lot but they also know they have to adjust.  Since it is a done deal, since ITTF has a contract with DHS, they have no influence.  So they concern themselves with other things.  They know that ITTF has never really listened to their opinions.

Since the material has changed, the sound of the ball also changed."
Ma Long said. Aside from that, Ma Long and Zhang Jike both agreed on
the difference on how the ball travels. Zhang Jike said that when he
tries to hit the ball, it always touches the sides or bottom part of his
racket, admitting some instabilities.
(from interview in October 2014).




Some of the best pro complaints were produced by Mastermind/Smartguy from Dima's original review on durability to Keinath to even the breakage when the NP40+ was introduced at the European Team Championship. Like Baal said, that results have not been largely affected by the ball leads everyone to accept the level playing field. But listen to Jim Butler comment during the NA Tour Finals. He voices precisely the same sentiments expressed here because he is in the same group of circlejerks as Baal.

-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Cybershape Carbon
FH/BH: H3P 41D.
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes. No time to train...


Posted By: BH-Man
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 6:46pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

"Before the change of the ball, Ovtcharov's level was comparable with Boll's. But now after the change, it seems that Boll has exceeded his teammate in a considerable amount." http://tabletennista.com/player/liu-guoliang/" rel="nofollow - Liu Guoliang started. "In contrast, I believe that the effect of the new ball on http://tabletennista.com/player/dimitrij-ovtcharov/" rel="nofollow - Dimitrij Ovtcharov is bigger. I read a report before that such change will benefit a player like Ovtcharov. I felt that it was just a speculation. Actually, I saw quite a lot of unforced errors from Ovtcharov in the competition. Before, he has big movements, he has strength. But after the change, there has been problems in his adjustments on those aspects." Liu Guoliang concluded.

This is from an interview in late October.  Since then, these top players have only been training and playing with the balls they use in competition.


A couple month or so ago, I saw Dimo n a live stream, forget where, (Grand finals???) he had one heck of a time judging the bounce on some light deep underspin balls. I never saw him miss so many balls in one game, the same number he would miss for an entire toruney. He also had a very bad cough, yet he fought it out and won after being down in sets. I am also convinced the seamed poly ball affects him negatively. They also replaced the ball in the match at least once. Could have also replaced between games too, but I'll never know.

-------------
Korea Foreign Table Tennis Club
Search for us on Facebook: koreaforeignttc


Posted By: ttTurkey
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 7:07pm
I can only relate my little "experiment", which I know is not scientific.

I played a few games with each of three different balls with someone that I have played against/trained with often. We are a similar level and usually have pretty good rallies (i.e. our styles don't "cancel out").

First we played a some games with a celluloid ball and we had our usual kind of match.

Then we switched to a NP40+ ball and it hardly affected our games. Perhaps there was a fraction less spin and speed but it wasn't enough of a difference to require any significant conscious adjustment.

Finally, we switched to a seamed 3* plastic ball (Donic) and it was like we had shared a bottle of bourbon! We both started making elementary mistakes and did not trust the bounce of the ball. The ball broke after 2 or 3 games and the replacement was just as bad. This ball spun a lot less than the celluloid ball and the NP40+; we both felt it "floated" on slow heavy topspin shots instead of dipping.

I guess it's possible that the Donic ball had a consistent low bounce that we did not adapt to, but I'd like to think that there was more to it than that. We both felt that the bounce was inconsistent and untrustworthy, which drained the confidence from our play. We did not perform the spin test for roundness on either ball. If we continued playing with this ball, I'm sure we would adjust and improve but that the final level of play would be lower than with celluloid or the NP40+ ball.


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 8:13pm
A bit of my own personal history.

When the announcement of the need for plastic balls came out, justified by an "impending world-wide ban on celluloid production", I was skeptical and said so in many threads (and I still have strong suspicions about this decision). 

Then the first seamless polyball prototypes circulated -- a very very unfortunate misstep by someone -- and we got one in Houston, and it was really bad.  My skepticism was then grounded in some reality. (If you want to see what they are like, order some 1-star seamless).  I figured that the entire seamless approach was doomed.  I was not alone (which is a big reason why even now seamless balls have had to overcome a gigantic mountain of negative expectations before they could be adopted, even by casual recreational players).

Then there were reports that big companies were working on seamed polyballs and many of us rejoiced.  We figured that was bound to be better.  Threads abounded.

So, my expectations going into this were (1) I would probably like the balls with seams and (2) would almost certainly dislike the seamless balls.

The reality is that I now very much prefer ITTF approved seamless balls to pretty much everything else, at this point including celluloid.  I no longer play with celluloid at all.  Therefore I am absolutely not resistant to change.  And my very extensive experience with seamed balls leads me to state unreservedly that they are terrible, even though every expectation I had was that I would probably like them.  So all of those accusations of my mindset, logic, or motivations from AgentHEX are just wrong.

Is it a popularity contest?  If the "plurality" of criticism of the seamed plastic balls is a circle jerk, it is one hell of a big circle at this point.  Do only people here think they play differently?  If you don't believe me, look at the quotes I posted above from interviews with Liu Guoliang.  He may know more about ping pong than AgentHEX. 

I would be very glad that USATT adopted NP40+ balls if they were generally available.  They certainly picked one of the best balls from a purely playing point of view.  But since they aren't generally available, why not adopt seamless balls?  Maybe Larry could do something about this.

Finally, I have noticed that outcomes at pretty much all levels of play don't really change a whole lot when players have both been training with the ball, even if there seem to be a lot of inexplicable errors.  People do speculate that top players were doing better or worse because of the new ball 5-6 months ago.  It is hard to imagine that continues to be an issue for them.


Posted By: bobloiy
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 10:43pm
Ok. Here's some feedback.

I've been playing with DHS 40+ lately, but a tournament today was using Joola 40+. DHS seemed to be harder, Joola a bit softer/lighter? I don't know if they're from the same factory or not. I found it easier to adjust to the Joola 40+ than the DHS one, for whatever reason.

The weirdest thing about the two balls however, was not the bounce, lack of spin, speed, etc. I found that the balls just died sometimes such as when I pushed the ball over. However, it was the strangest when I blocked the ball sometimes. Instead of the ball (having speed + topspin) bounce off the bat into the air, it just died off of my rubbers into the table, even though the angle of my bat was very open. What??? I don't understand how this could happen... It happened with other people too, even in the finals of the open tournament (2650 vs 2300 rated player).


Posted By: ThePongProfessor
Date Posted: 03/08/2015 at 11:43pm
My two cents - Our club has recently switched to from celluloid to XSF/YinHe 40+ *** (the XSF are indistinguishable from the YinHe ones in our opinion). 

Slower, less spin, and more physical game. The new ball favors players who previously had difficulties with serve returns (and vice versa: players who utilized a lot of spin in their game are at a disadvantage). Excellent consistency and durability. At ~$2/ball less expensive than the old Nitakku Premiums celluloid balls. 

The game is definitively more FUN with the 40+ as rallies are longer (e.g., fewer errors on serve returns). It's been a while since I have been playing with such a grin on my face. I would be perfectly content if the XSF/YinHe seemless 40+ became the new 'standard' ball. Highly recommended.     

I am yet to play with the abominations they call 'balls' (seamed chinese 40+ balls) - hopefully ITTF/USATT will come to their senses....


-------------
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/ThePongProfessor

http://mytabletennis.net/forum/feedback-thepongprofessor_topic69419.html" rel="nofollow - Feedback


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 03/09/2015 at 12:18am
Originally posted by patrickhrdlicka patrickhrdlicka wrote:

My two cents - Our club has recently switched to from celluloid to XSF/YinHe 40+ *** (the XSF are indistinguishable from the YinHe ones in our opinion). 

Slower, less spin, and more physical game. The new ball favors players who previously had difficulties with serve returns (and vice versa: players who utilized a lot of spin in their game are at a disadvantage). Excellent consistency and durability. At ~$2/ball less expensive than the old Nitakku Premiums celluloid balls. 

The game is definitively more FUN with the 40+ as rallies are longer (e.g., fewer errors on serve returns). It's been a while since I have been playing with such a grin on my face. I would be perfectly content if the XSF/YinHe seemless 40+ became the new 'standard' ball. Highly recommended.     

I am yet to play with the abominations they call 'balls' (seamed chinese 40+ balls) - hopefully ITTF/USATT will come to their senses....

With practice, that evaluation changes pretty quickly.  Lazy spinning is not rewarded, but heavy topspin is rewarded with higher consistency than anything I remember with the old ball, as well as some crazy sidespin on hook and fades.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Cybershape Carbon
FH/BH: H3P 41D.
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes. No time to train...


Posted By: LOG1C1AN
Date Posted: 03/09/2015 at 3:12am
Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by patrickhrdlicka patrickhrdlicka wrote:

My two cents - Our club has recently switched to from celluloid to XSF/YinHe 40+ *** (the XSF are indistinguishable from the YinHe ones in our opinion). 

Slower, less spin, and more physical game. The new ball favors players who previously had difficulties with serve returns (and vice versa: players who utilized a lot of spin in their game are at a disadvantage). Excellent consistency and durability. At ~$2/ball less expensive than the old Nitakku Premiums celluloid balls. 

The game is definitively more FUN with the 40+ as rallies are longer (e.g., fewer errors on serve returns). It's been a while since I have been playing with such a grin on my face. I would be perfectly content if the XSF/YinHe seemless 40+ became the new 'standard' ball. Highly recommended.     

I am yet to play with the abominations they call 'balls' (seamed chinese 40+ balls) - hopefully ITTF/USATT will come to their senses....

With practice, that evaluation changes pretty quickly.  Lazy spinning is not rewarded, but heavy topspin is rewarded with higher consistency than anything I remember with the old ball, as well as some crazy sidespin on hook and fades.


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.


Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/09/2015 at 3:16am
Originally posted by LOG1C1AN 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.


-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX


Posted By: LOG1C1AN
Date Posted: 03/09/2015 at 4:04am
Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:

Originally posted by LOG1C1AN 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.


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/09/2015 at 6:14pm
Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:


Firstly, that isn't Baal's logic.  Second, I've seen that report online from others and I've heard it offline from others.  It is not a unique report.


This is a good example of the same logic. The number of reports of an objectively verifiable fact doesn't make it happen any more than for instance reports of ball "dwelling" makes it dwell any more than it does. 

If the balls do this then it's trivial to observe what happens to roundness as they're played.

Quote
Well, I just pointed out to you that solutions have been offered.  That was hardly a complete list.  some of us have been promoting the use of the seamless balls since they are generally superior.  I've even written to Nittaku explaining how their SHA ball doesn't deserve the respect that the Nittaku brand confers - and have posted about it.

Your characterization of those complaining is flat out wrong.  Many of us are offering and doing what little we reasonably can to make dealing with the mess easier.  But that doesn't change the fact that it is a mess and that some of the balls are "junk" compared to the quality of balls that we are used to, that the ITTF bungled things, or make it somehow to not legitimate to complain about the situation.

Again, the reality is people are going to play with these balls. Studying how they behave and conscientiously adjusting to the change is much closer to effective at dealing with it than the ~0% effectiveness of complaining when not in a position of power to influence that reality. Yet the ratio of the latter to former has been incredibly high.

Quote
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.


-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/09/2015 at 6:21pm
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

Originally posted by wturber 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.  

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


-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/09/2015 at 6:25pm
Do a spin test on the table with a Chinese seamed ball after you have played with it for a few hours (even if it was round, or I should say balanced, when you started).  It yields a pretty bad result.  Do the same with a seamless ball or a celluloid ball.  Much less problem.

Many of us play with 40+ balls exclusively.  So we have to adjust.  The entire point of this thread was an OP asking if there is some way to facilitate the adjustment to seamed 40+ balls, which were giving him difficulties.  I suggested a way.


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/09/2015 at 6:26pm
> 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.


-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/09/2015 at 6:28pm
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 complain that is somewhat effective.

I for one think this sentence has no meaning.


Posted By: AgentHEX
Date Posted: 03/09/2015 at 6:33pm
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).


-------------
Science; upsetting the indignant since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Inquisition_and_first_judgement.2C_1616" rel="nofollow - 1616 .


Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 03/09/2015 at 6:36pm
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.  


Posted By: wturber
Date Posted: 03/09/2015 at 6:38pm
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

> Y

The particular here isn't really surprising or exceptional.


The particular was the point being responded to and you are simply evading answering that response.

And your doing so is neither surprising nor exceptional.


-------------
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net