Most Requested Table Tennis Review Ever | Rakza 7

brokenball;334476Rubbers don't have control. The player does.
People are not calibrated machines. The way to review a rubber is like how Pathfinderpro did years ago.

I wonder how Dan measures grip. I think he means coefficient of friction.
I would like to see them Dan and Tom a match. One with Rakza 7 and the other with their favorite super rubber. Then switch. The reason why is that each rally starts out relatively slow. For the most part they are just blasting balls back and forth. What would each player think they were giving up and would their perceived increase in control make up for it.

I don't like the comment about lifting backspin. Lifting back spin can be done with any normal rubber and SP.
The key is the match the tangential ( rotational surface ) speed of the ball. The ball will go back with the same amount of spin if you do this. If you swing faster you can close the paddle a little and increase the spin but you must swing faster than the surface speed of the ball to do this.

What it all comes down to is normal and tangential coefficient of restitution and whether you like the feel of the rubber. The relative coefficients of restitution could be measured. A TT ball can be shot at the rubber to measure the rebound. How far it bounces is an indication of the normal coefficient of restitution. If the ball has spin then the angle of the bounce off the paddle is an indication of the tangential coefficient of restitution.

I don't like reviews. There is too much opinion in all those except where there are measurements done like in Pathfinderpro's videos but that requires a lot of work.
What is also missing from these reviews is that can I do with this rubber that I can't with the other rubber.

Where I agree with Dan is the price/performance ratio. I buy my Rakza 7 from Tabletennis11 where I get 4 for the price of 3.

As a scientist, I would also prefer to measure/quantify characteristics of rubbers and blades. There are clearly some ways that could be done, BUT it would require expensive technical equipment plus a lot of time spent.

In the end, who will pay for that? As it is, none of us who review equipment are getting rich of it, especially considering the amount of time that goes into writing and/or making video reviews. Experienced players/reviewers CAN qualitatively describe how the equipment feels to them and communicate the experimental observations (e.g., length of trajectory, amount of spin based on how opponent reacts, soft/sharp feeling, etc). Is this approach scientific? No. Is it biased? I am sure we all try to be as objective as possible. Is it helpful? I think it is.

Hi everyone, I have a question about how-to pair this rubber.

Previously I have used Rakza 7 on a 5 ply limbe topped blade, and it was very good. It encouraged me to complete my stroke and encouraged me to hit hard with it.

However I tried to put this on Carbonado 45, and I just couldnt feelt he grip anymore. It felt like it just penerated the rubber/sponge, rebounced by the blade, and then shot out without gripping and spinning the ball. Is it because carbonado 45 is relatively stiff and hard compare to a 5 ply limba topped blade? Or is it the rubber is relatively soft and it just doesnt work as well on a carbon blade?

Is it also related to the notion (in Dan's review) that there isn't as much grip and/or "purchase" on this rubber

Originally Posted by virtuososiu

Hi Yogi bear, just wondering if you can share how-to pair Rakza 7.

I really liked it on 5 ply wood blade, but not so much on the carbonado 45.

MA Lin Soft Carbon, Falck W7, Ma Lin Extra Offensive

Originally Posted by The Pong Professor

As a scientist, I would also prefer to measure/quantify characteristics of rubbers and blades. There are clearly some ways that could be done, BUT it would require expensive technical equipment plus a lot of time spent.

In the end, who will pay for that? As it is, none of us who review equipment are getting rich of it, especially considering the amount of time that goes into writing and/or making video reviews. Experienced players/reviewers CAN qualitatively describe how the equipment feels to them and communicate the experimental observations (e.g., length of trajectory, amount of spin based on how opponent reacts, soft/sharp feeling, etc). Is this approach scientific? No. Is it biased? I am sure we all try to be as objective as possible. Is it helpful? I think it is.

I think you would agree with me that being too technical will not enable normal readers to relate to a post.

Originally Posted by brokenball

Once a standardize testing setup is made it wouldn't take too much time to test a rubber. The main things to test are the normal and tangential COR. That wouldn't take long.

[quoute]
In the end, who will pay for that? As it is, none of us who review equipment are getting rich of it, especially considering the amount of time that goes into writing and/or making video reviews. Experienced players/reviewers CAN qualitatively describe how the equipment feels to them and communicate the experimental observations (e.g., length of trajectory, amount of spin based on how opponent reacts, soft/sharp feeling, etc). Is this approach scientific? No.

Since you have the know-how, the testing equipment and it wouldn't take long, it would be great and very valuable if you would test rubbers and blades scientifically and publish your findings!

Similar to what TTGear Lab does with his graphs but more in-depth.