Liu GuoLiang & pip density reduction regulation of 2004

Davis · Sep 17, 2022

I read somewhere that Liu GuoLiang stated in some interview after 2004 that the pip density reduction regulation of 2004 had a negative effect on him

I have trouble understanding this because as a I see it, ITTF passed this regulation not to limit Liu GuoLiang because the reasons seem to be that the 1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction Regulation & the 2000 40- ball change were not working enough to sufficiently limit the choppers & the blockers (in fact blockers were such a nuisance that ITTF also had to pass the Frictionless Pips Ban in 2008).

Let us look this some more. The maximum pip density allowed before 2004 was 50 pips per sq.cm. It was reduced to 30 pips per sq.cm to reduce any spin capability (both back & top spins) .

So how does this really effect Liu ? Because I would tend to think he was using pips on forehand not for spin for speed. So if the pip density was dropped does it not give him more speed & really help him more ? Because why else would he be using short pips ? If he wanted more top spin , he could have used just inverted ?

Also I am not even sure what the pip density of whatever Liu used before 2004 & after 2004 was . I tried to study the pip density of many of these pips rubbers after 2004 and they all seem to be 15 or below , even long pips (I many be wrong on this) .

So unless you can provide other more compelling proof, I have to conclude as stated earlier above > the target of 2004 change was choppers & frictionless blockers (before 2008) & not Liu and short pips.

But I am open-minded & willing to change my mind if I am convinced otherwise

pingpongpaddy · Sep 19, 2022

Davis said:
I read somewhere that Liu GuoLiang stated in some interview after 2004 that the pip density reduction regulation of 2004 had a negative effect on him

I have trouble understanding this because as a I see it, ITTF passed this regulation not to limit Liu GuoLiang because the reasons seem to be that the 1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction Regulation & the 2000 40- ball change were not working enough to sufficiently limit the choppers & the blockers (in fact blockers were such a nuisance that ITTF also had to pass the Frictionless Pips Ban in 2008).

Let us look this some more. The maximum pip density allowed before 2004 was 50 pips per sq.cm. It was reduced to 30 pips per sq.cm to reduce any spin capability (both back & top spins) .

So how does this really effect Liu ? Because I would tend to think he was using pips on forehand not for spin for speed. So if the pip density was dropped does it not give him more speed & really help him more ? Because why else would he be using short pips ? If he wanted more top spin , he could have used just inverted ?

Also I am not even sure what the pip density of whatever Liu used before 2004 & after 2004 was . I tried to study the pip density of many of these pips rubbers after 2004 and they all seem to be 15 or below , even long pips (I many be wrong on this) .

So unless you can provide other more compelling proof, I have to conclude as stated earlier above > the target of 2004 change was choppers & frictionless blockers (before 2008) & not Liu and short pips.

But I am open-minded & willing to change my mind if I am convinced otherwise

Is it certain that this would reduce the surface area in contact with the ball? The pips would have a greater diameter and therefore more area for the ball to be in friction contact. Is there an additional rule specifying how close the pips can be? This would be relevant I think

Dominikk85 · Sep 19, 2022

Was the pip density regulation to ban the SP of lgl or was it a collateral damage to regulate LPs? What would be the advantage of a higher pip density on a SP anyway?

igorponger · Sep 20, 2022

[size=+2]They shoot sickly horses, don't they?[/size]
To all present evidence, Liu Golian was at his ebb when he entered 2000 Olympics. After he failed against the Sweden best, Chinese big bosses dismissed LG from international competitions mercilessly :+(

Vladimir Pudding · Sep 20, 2022

pingpongpaddy;380951
Is it certain that this would reduce the surface area in contact with the ball?

Yes, Farther away the pips are, lesser the spin and more the speed

pingpongpaddy;380951
The pips would have a greater diameter and therefore more area for the ball to be in friction contact.

This is not about the design parameters of a single pip(singular) but the pips (plural) . See explantion below

pingpongpaddy;380951
Is there an additional rule specifying how close the pips can be? This would be relevant I think

The pip density regulation IS the regulation that specifies how close the pips can be, Seems to me like you misunderstood the phrase "pip density".It is not about the density (such as chemical content) of a single pip (singular) or parameters of an individual pip. It is about how densely pips (plural) are distributed as a whole on the rubber surface. When it says 50 pips per sq.cm , that means number of pips in an area of 1 square centimeter . May be I should use the phrase
"pips distribution density"
So when the pip density was reduced from 50 pips (plural) down to 30 pips it drastically reduced the spin producing capability of the rubber as whole This effects any pip, not just short pips.
Of course there are other design parameters that deternmine spin production capability such as pip friction (top & sides) , pip flexibility, chemicals used to produce the rubber, pip geometry etc.

BTW the issue under discussion is not a rule change. It is a regulation change. What is the difference ?
A rule change requires 75% of votes in the general council of 228 member nations but a regulation change only requires 51% of the vote of the ITTF executive council.

.

Vladimir Pudding · Sep 20, 2022

Dominikk85;380954Was the pip density regulation to ban the SP of lgl or was it a collateral damage to regulate LPs?

No . it is the other way around. The regulation was aimed at long pips but short pips were collateral damage mostly because Liu Guo Liang was a highly visible personality & everyone assumed it was ONLY aimed at him. Scientific evidence says otherwise.

Dominikk85;380954 What would be the advantage of a higher pip density on a SP anyway?

For ANY type of pip, the denser the pips distribution is , the more the spin and less the speed & more the control. A reduction in pips distribution density will increse speed, reduce spin & reduce control.

So what can be reason for Liu Guo Liang complaining ? He complained because it reduced his top spin capability.. One can always say he could use inveretd on forehand also, but then he would lose the flat hitting capability of short pips & its spin contrast level & spin level variations from his backhand inverted. So basically he wanted to have the cake & eat it too on his forehand with pips. During a top spin rally the more spinny pips will give him more control also (he contacts the ball in a tangential angle, sort of brushing with inverted) but when he goes for a flat kill the ball goes back dead because the contact angle is orthogonal (dead on) . He obviously felt he had "enough no spin" on his flat kills but was upset about losing the spin due to the reduction in pips distribution density, which I sort of see his point for complaining. When a player flat hits with invertedit is neither as fast nor as dead compared to a flat hit with pips. Keep also in mind he twiddled at strategic points to loop using inverted on his forehand (lot more spin)

Peter93 · Sep 20, 2022

Davis said:
I read somewhere that Liu GuoLiang stated in some interview after 2004 that the pip density reduction regulation of 2004 had a negative effect on him

I have trouble understanding this because as a I see it, ITTF passed this regulation not to limit Liu GuoLiang because the reasons seem to be that the 1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction Regulation & the 2000 40- ball change were not working enough to sufficiently limit the choppers & the blockers (in fact blockers were such a nuisance that ITTF also had to pass the Frictionless Pips Ban in 2008).

Let us look this some more. The maximum pip density allowed before 2004 was 50 pips per sq.cm. It was reduced to 30 pips per sq.cm to reduce any spin capability (both back & top spins) .

So how does this really effect Liu ? Because I would tend to think he was using pips on forehand not for spin for speed. So if the pip density was dropped does it not give him more speed & really help him more ? Because why else would he be using short pips ? If he wanted more top spin , he could have used just inverted ?

Also I am not even sure what the pip density of whatever Liu used before 2004 & after 2004 was . I tried to study the pip density of many of these pips rubbers after 2004 and they all seem to be 15 or below , even long pips (I many be wrong on this) .

So unless you can provide other more compelling proof, I have to conclude as stated earlier above > the target of 2004 change was choppers & frictionless blockers (before 2008) & not Liu and short pips.

But I am open-minded & willing to change my mind if I am convinced otherwise

The original Spin Pips, which Liu Guoliang used for almost the entirety of his career until it was banned, obviously did not adhere to this rule, which is why TSP developed Spin Pips MD (the MD, as Victas explained in their TSP history and retrospective, which they published when they announced they were merging, stood for modified).

Also, this post singles out Liu, but this change affected tons of players .I could post all the names here, but Spin Pips was probably the most popular horizontally aligned pips at the time.

You are right, it is believed that this was originally used to target long pips specifically, and just happened to affect short pips as an "unintended consequence".

Dominikk85 · Sep 20, 2022

Wouldn't a SP with less but larger diameter pips have the same spin generation capacity as those spinpips?

That way you could also increase contact area with the ball without increasing number of pips, couldn't you?

Lula · Sep 20, 2022

I have a hard time understanding the technical aspects of the pimple rubber but i can imagine he lost a lot of spin in the serve. As well as safety in the game overall. Yes, short pimples are good at smashing but at the same time very vulnerable when you need to open up and somewhat unsafe compared to backside. So more spin may have given him more safety and margin for error?

Vladimir Pudding · Sep 20, 2022

Dominikk85 said:
Wouldn't a SP with less but larger diameter pips have the same spin generation capacity as those spinpips?

That way you could also increase contact area with the ball without increasing number of pips, couldn't you?

Good question. But we are only talking about one parameter, the pips distribution density and not a combinaion of parameters (there are about maybe 8 to 10 design parameters os deign of a pip .
Anywy, larger the pips, more the speed & lesser the spin & lesser the control.
But all this tecnhical analysis is meaningless because the bottomline is that Liu Guoliang was banned from use of the brand of his favorite rubber that he used for so long & understandably very upset but everyone thought it was aimed mostly at him because he was the World & Olympic Champion.
Even if a new rubber became available, it would have taken him some time to adjust which it seems obviously he did not but theer may be othee reasons such as his age & upcoming Chinese new players to take his place on the team, more players worldwide figuring out his pioneering style etc etc. But this change was just another successful back door attempt by ITTF equipment committee in their ongoing brilliant strategy of severely limiting long pips (such as frictionless) but cleverly not banning them. Because the equipment committee (more like one person who will remain unnamed) felt that they were not enough with the 1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction regulation & the 2000 change for big ball 40-mm.

Vladimir Pudding · Sep 20, 2022

Lula said:
I have a hard time understanding the technical aspects of the pimple rubber but i can imagine he lost a lot of spin in the serve.

This is an interesting point because, since he was the pioneer of the RPH, he did not twiddle that much except during certain strategic points in a match and that also only to play a forehand loop with his inverted side (mostly used on his backhand) .I don''t know maybe penhold twiddling is harder maybe becaue of a smaller handle. But I have seen more RPH combo racket penholders(nostly Cpen) twiddle more these days after he introduced this style. Because it seems he did serve mostly using pips on foreheand side and may have lost some spin,
But then again he could have twiddled and served using his inverted side. Chinese born David Zhuang , a classmate of Jiang Jiliang & many time USA champion & a TPH player (like Jiang Jiliang) & not RPH had inverted on the backside of his TPH cpen blade but used the inverted for more spin in his serves I think & I think he rarely used his inveretd side except to serve.
You also see this with shakehand combo choppers. At the pro levels a combo chopper will use a backhand serve using inverted side & quickly twiddle back to having inverted on forehand. Thi seems to be because they want to start building up the spin in long serves because if the looper loops back the serve the spin is already doubled & if the chopper chops it again, that is adding even more backpin on top of that double backspin.
This is the correct intended use (& the very reason for invention) of long pips meant for spin amplification (not just reversal or continuation) and for maximizing the looper torture index because the backspin has already been severely limited by 6 ITTF rule / regulation changes. Of course also when the serve is short it has tons of sidespin on top of either heavy back or topspin making it difficult for the looper to banana flick it. The spin amplification of long pips (and not just reversal or continuation as with anti) makes long pips far more lethal than anti.

Thogh it is funny to me when a 1700 long pips player imitates this pro serve (more so to look like a pro than for its real purpose at pro levels) because the combo player cannot handle the incoming loop even by a 1700 looper more often than not. I am not even a good looper but when a combo player gives me this serve I just kinda of laugh inside & loop the crap out of it.

Lula said:
Yes, short pimples are good at smashing but at the same time very vulnerable when you need to open up and somewhat unsafe compared to backside. So more spin may have given him more safety and margin for error?

Yes. Very true, This is why only the best natural born tabletennis players are capable of using short pips on primary side & there are a very few of them especially shakehanders. I cannot think of any after Johnny Huang until Falck. And this is also why short pips is a TOTALLY & MOST useless rubber on the backhand side for a far less talented amateur but obviously none of them realize it & live in a fantasyland thinking they can be Mima Ito (Hou Yingchao)
Short pips is THEORETICALLY best rubber there is but from a prectical perspective the worst. Because a straigt line is the shortest distance between two points. So if a player can consistently deliver the ball from Point A (striker) to Point B (receiver) with a flat hit that has all just speed giving the receiver the least possible time to react, then you don't need any spins at all in any racket sport. We would then not need inverted or long pips etc and we all could all just use short pips with sponge. But that is just not reality and that is why less talented players (myself included) need more spin (back or top) to keep the ball on the table.

Far less talented players need more of illegal boosted spin (to keep the ball on the table but with higher speeds both of which are anti-spectator oreientation) LOL
And this is also why pickleball is getting popular by day because they almost totally eliminated the complexities of spin . I am sure now that the mad race now will be on to create more spinny rackets for pickleball as more TT manufacturers like Joola , Stiga etx are jumping into this as a golden business opportunity. But spin crazed TT players seem to have rejected TTX which seems to be based on pickleball LOL . Rightfully so, because for better or worse, spin is the most distinguishing (though extremely complex) feature of tabletennis compared to other racket sports. Of course hardbat players want to regress & ITTF tried a modern novel version of hardbat with TTX but obviously & thankfully is failing, because it seems most TT players are addicted to spin and also enjoy the challenge of solving the complexities of spin delivered at highest speeds & rejected the idea of jumping to other simpler less complex versions of TT instead such as hardbat or TTX or to other sports like pickelball though the TT population is already tiny LOL

.

Peter93 · Sep 20, 2022

Vladimir Pudding said:
Good question. But we are only talking about one parameter, the pips distribution density and not a combinaion of parameters (there are about maybe 8 to 10 design parameters os deign of a pip .
Anywy, larger the pips, more the speed & lesser the spin & lesser the control.
But all this tecnhical analysis is meaningless because the bottomline is that Liu Guoliang was banned from use of the brand of his favorite rubber that he used for so long & understandably very upset but everyone thought it was aimed mostly at him because he was the World & Olympic Champion.
Even if a new rubber became available, it would have taken him some time to adjust which it seems obviously he did not but theer may be othee reasons such as his age & upcoming Chinese new players to take his place on the team, more players worldwide figuring out his pioneering style etc etc. But this change was just another successful back door attempt by ITTF equipment committee in their ongoing brilliant strategy of severely limiting long pips (such as frictionless) but cleverly not banning them. Because the equipment committee (more like one person who will remain unnamed) felt that they were not enough with the 1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction regulation & the 2000 change for big ball 40-mm.

The serve ban and ball size increase definitely had a bigger effect on his career than the pips ban, but this obviously a huge change for players who used Spin Pips (which was extremely popular amongst players who used it on their forehands, as well as choppers).

Here is a photo of MD Spinpips (which was also banned)

And here's super spin pips which replaced it

Again, consider that as you increase pimple density, you are increasing surface area, but you'll never approach what inverted has. Anyone that has used short pips will tell you (myself included), even dense, horizontally aligned pips (like VO > 102 or Rakza PO) are great at hitting through spin. The reason players choose other pips like Spectol, Moristo SP, etc. is to get that "sink" or skidding effect that drives the ball low.

And again, this "didn't he want speed" ignores that this rubber was very popular amongst choppers who wouldn't care about that at all, but instead want to generate more spin on chops (used by Junko Haneyoshi (former CNT player and Li Sun's sister), and Rinko Sakata (2000 Olympics Team)).

Vladimir Pudding · Sep 20, 2022

Peter93 said:
And again, this "didn't he want speed" ignores that this rubber was very popular amongst choppers who wouldn't care about that at all, but instead want to generate more spin on chops (used by Junko Haneyoshi (former CNT player and Li Sun's sister), and Rinko Sakata (2000 Olympics Team)).

The contact angle for spin is tangential but for speed it is orthogonal (vertical)
The short pips are primarily designed for speed (in post hardbat era of sponge) & not spin whereas long pips are primarily (original intended purpose) for spin (amplification).
Aany claim otherwise is pure marketing gimmick using pros as poster boys and girls to peddle rubbers among the not so clueful.
Simply because a pro player using short pips for wrong purpose (chopping or blocking on weakside) in no way justifies that an amateur can be skilled enough to do the same.
I have a name for this syndrome among amateurs but I won't mention it for now as it opens a lot of can worms brings angry reactions from amateur players using short pips (instead of long pips) on the weakside .

mcangus · Sep 20, 2022

It's pretty simple,he didn't have that much of a game besides his serves and the trickiness of short pimples(against Kong Linghui who knew he serves he had a 11 to 0 h2h losing record).Even his serves were mostly side-spin top/side-under variations,he didn't have the underspin-no spin variation for third ball attacks like Ma Lin and Waldner.
At the 2001 WTTC teams he lost to a lefty Dutch player who wasn't even ranked and he was benched for the remaining event(same thing happened in 1995).Of course the 40mm ball had much more an effect on his game than any rubber.If he had good third ball attacks he would've survived just like Waldner/Ma Lin.But even Kong Linghui didn't have good results after 2001.LGL/KLG were transitional players.
Penhold pushing and blocking was more efficient with short pimples because Europeans had problems reading the amount of spin and those wobbled balls messed up their timing.In the 1988 Olympic match against Kim Ki Taek Waldner struggled against Kim's blocks and short game a lot more than he struggled against Ma Lin.

Vladimir Pudding · Sep 20, 2022

mcangus said:
the trickiness of short pimples

LOL REALLY ??

As a long pips player I am deeply offended that my "skill" of trickery is being minimized like this giving credit to short pips players 😁

mcangus · Sep 20, 2022

What's so funny?Short pimples have low flat trajectory that is very difficult to block.You need to play heavy topspin from both wings to survive against pimples penhold which was rare in the 80's and 90's.You should watch the documentary of how Sweden beat China in 1989.Their biggest challenge was to produce heavy spin from both wing while maintaing their position close to the table.

Vladimir Pudding · Sep 20, 2022

mcangus said:
What's so funny?Short pimples have low flat trajectory that is very difficult to block.You need to play heavy topspin from both wings to survive against pimples penhold which was rare in the 80's and 90's.You should watch the documentary of how Sweden beat China in 1989.Their biggest challenge was to produce heavy spin from both wing while maintaing their position close to the table.

What is funny,,,,,,sorry actually hilarious is your calling short pips (used by the best natural born table tennis players) as "tricky"
I am not making fun of you per se. Maybe you did not mean it that way & lot of times it gets lost in translation of how people think in another language. If that is the case I apologize.

I know short pips have low flat trajectory at high speeds & I have explained in another post why fat hitting is THEORETICALLY the best playing style in any racket sport & I strongly disagree with your calling them as "tricky" because only the very best natural born tabletennis players can play this style & also get away with using this style these days such as Falck for instance

Anyway I had the VHS video tape of 1989 China vs Sweden finals & seen it 100's of times. Appelgren lobbing down Jiang was indeed one of the most amazing matches I have ever seen.

I have for sale an extra copy of the 1989 USATT magazine with Waldner on the cover titled "Sweden breaks the spell" for $5000 for anyone other than the actual members of the Swedish Dream Team 2 (I wil give it to them for free LOL)

mcangus · Sep 20, 2022

It's indeed tricky.Why do you think Kong Linghui destroyed LGL all the time but didn't have good results against Kim Taek Soo?Did Karakasevic ever beat any top player in a major other than short pips players?Are you a penholder by the way?
Liu Guoliang himself said Falck doesn't know how to take advantage of the pips,so there has to be more than just slapping the ball which is possible even with inverted rubbers these days.
LGL was a serve specialist.He bought time for the CNT 'cause Chinese shakehanders were inferior to Europeans in the 90's.Οnce he was figured out he was replaced.It was a common practice at the time see Ding Song who was the 1995 WTTC MVP.Besides,both LGL and KLH had serious injuries since their mid-20's(KLH ankle and elbow injuries,LGL shoulder injury).His pips ban was really secondary.

Vladimir Pudding · Sep 20, 2022

mcangus said:
It's indeed tricky.Why do you think Kong Linghui destroyed LGL all the time but didn't have good results against Kim Taek Soo?Did Karakasevic ever beat any top player in a major other than short pips players?Are you a penholder by the way?
Liu Guoliang himself said Falck doesn't know how to take advantage of the pips,so there has to be more than just slapping the ball which is possible even with inverted rubbers these days.

You can call any rubber "tricky" if you do not knw how to play agaisnt it.,
But IMO , short pips rubber is the least tricky rubber there is.
Inverted is not tricky because it is now used by majority & therefore considered "normal" and pips rubbers "abnormal" or tricky.

When the inverted arrived on the scene in late 50s and early 60s many angry harbatters (short pips no sponge) referred to inverted as "junk" rubbers.

I am not sure how it is relevant or absolutely necessary to be a super expert o be a shakehander to comment about shakehand style or to be a penholder to comment about about a penhold style

If if Liu's pips were tricky to European (shakehanders), it is not clear to me as to why it was not tricky to a Chinese shakehander Kong Linghui. Are Liu's pips selectively tricky ?

We can go on and on & on with isolated examples but in general most players seem to think whatever rubber they have trouble playing to be a tricky rubber. So in tabletennis players think their racket (rubber & blade) is always "holier" & "virtuous" than their opponents.

I never meant to imply that using short pips is ONLY a matter of just smashing every ball. There are other skills involved for any player using any type of rubber. Tabletennis is a sport of trickery to some extent but it is very wrong & disrespectful to call just one rubber type to be tricky especially when you admit certain opponents find it to be not tricky but others don'r

mcangus · Sep 20, 2022

It boils down to how often you play against a style.Short pimples were pretty much obsolete in the 90's.Liu Guoliang was the only top 10 player and Europeans didn't play that often against him 'cause the tour was different at the time.Take Rosskopf for example.He played against LGL only 5 times in his career 2 of them were in the Olympics and 2 in the World Cup.Ηow is he supposed to get familiar with his game when he only meets in such big tournaments being under such pressure?Of course the Chinese team had many Rosskopf clones to train against top scouting,game analysis and even intelligence from their own players who played in the Bundesliga.
Even LGL has said his game was only a temporary solution for the CNT to catch up with Europe.Even before the pips ban he had two poor seasons(1997/1998) that no one seems to talk about and of course his game was cracked by Waldner and LGL was first and foremost known for being the Waldner beater.

Liu GuoLiang & pip density reduction regulation of 2004

Member

Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads