Recent content by ViperTableTennis

It's illegal to use a pips-in rubber without a sponge so every ITTF approval on a pips-in racket covering should just cover the rubber top-sheet and the sponge i.e. treat both components as a single unit. There shouldn't be "mix and match" on anything. There are literally hundreds (thousands?)...

Its a well known rubber but its a pretty old model these days. I think I'm right in saying it was introduced before the change to plastic balls. It might have been "tweaked" to optimise it for the plastic ball, but if it hasn't been then there are probably better options out there if you're...

You're not factoring in the likely trade-off; the SP's might well improve your serve receive, but they'll also change other aspects of your game, and not necessarily in a good way. What you gain in serve receive, you might lose in backhand rally shots, for example, meaning that you wont gain...

I experimented a bit with different grips last year. Inspired in part by the Seemiller backhand but also the Tiger Wing grip mentioned above. What I came up with was a modified bat design and a modified grip. The bat design is basically the same as a standard bat except that you only have...

Is it the short pips themselves, or is it the different stroke mechanics used when hitting a ball with short pips? The stroke with SP's is more of a drive-stroke where you are hitting more behind the ball rather than brushing the ball as you would with an inverted rubber. It doesn't seem...

Tell me you can't play against LP's without telling me you can't play against LP's :ROFLMAO:

Tenergy 19 is basically the plastic ball version of Tenergy 05. Anyone that is still using Tenergy 05 should in my opinion at least give 19 a try.

I wonder what level he could have realistically played at as a double inverted attacker?

I've used T88-1 (the old sponge version of this rubber). I'm my opinion it plays most similar to Tenergy 25, the main difference being that it is a bit more tacky (but nothing like a full-on tacky rubber), and is a bit slower. I quite liked the old sponge version so will probably give this one...

So it's the same top-sheet as the old T88-1 but with a new sponge?

So is this new T88-1s going to share the same approval code as the original T88-I (approval code 62-009), meaning that both the old an the new versions will be approved by ITTF when 62-009 gets added back onto the LARC? But I assume you've stopped making the original T88-I so those will no...

It has the ITTF approval code number 62-009 based on the pictures included above...but that code number isn't listed on the current LARC. 62-009 was the code number used for T88-I which used to be on the LARC but has now dropped-off. So if the T88-I s version is being released under the old code...

Is this ITTF approved? It doesn't appear on the current LARC from what I can see.

If we accept that the rule requires that the receiver have clear sight of the ball at all times, then I think technology can be the only possible way of getting close to an objective view on whether or not the ball was hidden from their view. An additional umpire or linesman can never see the...

If you think it will be a problem that the serve receiver will obstruct the view of the cameras, then it is also true that the serve receiver would obstruct the view of the linesman. The only way I can think of to eliminate the issue of the serve receiver getting in the way would be for players...