Affordable first custom racket for ambitious new adult player

[James Z]

A soft rubber normally produce a lower throw angle than a hard rubber.

I know how different parameters for various designs for pips rubbers & blades effect throw angle but I am not completely sure about inverted rubbers

I may be wrong on this but I disagree with the statement that A soft rubber normally produce a lower throw angle than a hard rubber. I think a softer rubber will have more dwell time & release the ball later than a hard rubber which will have lower dwell time & therefore a softer rubber will have a higher throw angle.
The concept is very similar to a soft all wood blade having a higher throw angle than say a carbon outer layer blade. (On the other hand various composite matrerials have their own differences.Foe example I think Arylate may have a higherthrow angle than carbon, may be because it is softer ? I do notknow).

So to me a harder blade or harder (inverted) rubber has a flatter (& faster) trajectory (meaning lower throw angle)

I do not claim tohave lot of expertise on rubbers in 40+ ball era. But I think TSP 730 & Globe 999 have a higher throw angle than RITC Tack Speed 2000 or TSP New Magnet C. I think this is because the (0nverted) pips in 730 & 999 are shorter. This is why RITC Tack Speed 2000 & TSP New Magnet C block like a dream against a super spinny incoming loop compared to 730 or 999, though 2000 & New Magnet C can create incredibly heavy spins on their own.

Yinhe 9000c & 9000d or 9000e etc are also like this I think

TSP New Magnet C had a higher throw angle than TSP New Magnet D because TSP New Magnet D had a harder sponge. TSP 730 & Globe 999 were later available in so many sponge types to vary speed & throw angle.

i have not made too much measurements (or seen a significant differnece) in 40+ ball era between various inverted rubbers.
All non-Chinese rubbers seem like anti spin rubbers with low spin & throw angles tome so I cannot comment LOL

But as I said I may wrong on this as I honestly don't pretend to fully understand how different variables for spinny inverted rubber designs increase or decrease throw angles.

 

[Lazer]

Sorry, but in my experience the softer surface always releases the ball at a lower angle.

Cheers
L-zr

 

[jk1980]

i could image Lazer's theory to be correct in certain situations where you hit the ball hard or the ball comes with a high velocity.

While you might be able to pull and drag the ball into a higher trajectory with the rubber and sponge of a harder rubber/sponge because it "sticks" in the rubber+sponge without hitting through onto the blade's wood, a softer rubber/sponge would probably have the ball hit the blade through the rubber easily and catapult straight off (in a lower trajectory) before you can even drag the ball up while it is "trapped" in the rubber.

 

[3dnanjan]

Sorry, but in my experience the softer surface always releases the ball at a lower angle.

Cheers
L-zr

i have no idea what you people are talking about, but i already ordered the combo i talked to lazer about and i got it in a very very good deal of 72$ total

 

[Lazer]

i have no idea what you people are talking about, but i already ordered the combo i talked to lazer about and i got it in a very very good deal of 72$ total

When you are hitting the ball you need a little bit more open angle with the softer rubber. Or you will hit the net. It’s not much but noticeable.

Cheers
L-zr

 

[James Z]

i could image Lazer's theory to be correct in certain situations where you hit the ball hard or the ball comes with a high velocity.

While you might be able to pull and drag the ball into a higher trajectory with the rubber and sponge of a harder rubber/sponge because it "sticks" in the rubber+sponge without hitting through onto the blade's wood, a softer rubber/sponge would probably have the ball hit the blade through the rubber easily and catapult straight off (in a lower trajectory) before you can even drag the ball up while it is "trapped" in the rubber.

But wouldn't the harder rubber (top sheet+ sponge) shoot the ball off quicker with lesser spin and a more flatter trajectory ?
Just the same wau as a hard blade designed for hitters (such as Sardius used by Johnny Huang or many penhold hitting blades) would shoot the ball off with a flatter trajectory (lower throw angle), whereas a soft all wood blade with more dwell time would have a more curvy trajectory (higher throw angle) ?

Again I may be wrong on this but there may be objective tests & measurements that major major manufacturers conduct and results mostly never released & kept as a trade secret (because manufacturers want to advertise all theirs products claiminfgthat each of their rubbers have maximum everything, like a politican reading from a standard script)

 

[Lazer]

Again yes you are wrong, A softer surface (with all other parameters equal) will bounce less…
The characteristics of the blade is minuscule here and besides a thin blade is not softer but has bigger trampoline effect because it bends a tiny bit.
A hard surface is different from a stiff surface.

Cheers
L-zr

 

[James Z]

Again yes you are wrong, A softer surface (with all other parameters equal) will bounce less…

If the softer surface bounces less, it means it has more dwell time to be able to create a more curvy trajectory (higher throw angle) compared to a hard rubber which has a lower dwell time

The characteristics of the blade is minuscule here and besides a thin blade is not softer but has bigger trampoline effect because it bends a tiny bit.

In my earlier posts I was talking about rubber and blade independently.
However if you combine them, the blade has a significant effect though various combnations of rubbers & blades can be used to arrive at same end result
Same difference from a practical standpoint. An all wood blade will flex more. An all wood blade with hard outer layer will still flex more than a composite blade.and the hard wood blade will still give a higher throw angle. Same concept with hard rubber or soft rubber. Again so many combinations of blades & rubbers are possible to arrive at same result, as is so many combinations of sponge and top sheet (indepedently of or inclusive of the blade) . But talking about just the rubber (sponge+top sheet) I think a softer rubber will have a higher throw angle (more curvy trajectory) based on my experiences with Globe 999 compared to Tack Speed 2000. If you use the same soft sponge for both 999 will shoot lot of blocks off the table that 2000 won't.
On the other hand Mark V & Sriver act the same though designs are the same. The original MarK V has a harder top sheet than original Sriver but the original Sriver has harder sponge than mark V. (Of course Mark V & Sriver both released speed gluing versions with softer sponges, both of which had a higher throw angle) .

 

[Lazer]

If you compare a soft rubber with a hard rubber on the same blade, the relative effect on the “throw angle” is minuscule. What this means is the blade will have virtually the same effect on both rubbers regardless of hardness.

Cheers
L-zr

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

If you compare a soft rubber with a hard rubber on the same blade, the relative effect on the “throw angle” is minuscule. What this means is the blade will have virtually the same effect on both rubbers regardless of hardness.

Cheers
L-zr

You do know you are being trolled, right? You know who you are responding to, right? Think about it.

 

[Michael Zhuang]

You do know you are being trolled, right? You know who you are responding to, right? Think about it.

Who is James Z?

 

[Lazer]

He pretty much follows the patterns of Keayne West…
Or however the name is spelled.

Cheers
L-zr

 

[Scarfed Garchomp]

He pretty much follows the patterns of Keayne West…
Or however the name is spelled.

Cheers
L-zr

Behind all the masks, it is spelled Sjan

 

[James Z]

You do know you are being trolled, right? You know who you are responding to, right? Think about it.

Why am the one who is trolling ? Lazer is the one who either keeps repeating what he says or in this case repeating what I said in a different way.. i clearly stated that I was comparing hard rubbers against soft rubbers independently of soft & hard blades. He just repeated waht I said in a different way.
Why would I waste my time with a detailed explanation to start with if I was trolling ? I also stated clealry that I may be wrong on this, which I realize now is a mistake. Affter some thought I am reasonably convinced now that a soft rubber (sponge+top sheet) will have a higher throw angle than a hard rubber, with testing perfomed using the same blade.
I am sorry but so far Lazer has not provided me a compelling proof. If he or someone else provides such proof, I will readily apologize because I said I said I coud be wrong on this to start with.
I also stated that you can get the same end result using the same combination sponge+top sheet+ varying compositions of wood & composites of blades.

 

[Michael Zhuang]

My thinking also is that all else equal, a softer rubber will have a higher throw angle. But I think the pimple structure impacts the angle more.

Anybody else have definitive answer?

 

[James Z]

. But I think the pimple structure impacts the angle more.

That is one of the factors & that is exactly first I said in my very first explanation using Tack Speed 2000 & TSP New Magnet C as examples. they both have pips (inverted of course) that are shorter compared to standard pip length for inverted rubbers. That is why blocks with these rubbers will almost never fly off the table (lower throw angle but also slow) but the same returns using 730 or 999 will fly of the end of the opponent's side of the table. (higher throw angle & fast).
This poor blocking is also why I switched from 999 to Mercury. The high throw angle was even more pronouced with the celluloid ball
I also discussed various pips parameters in my earlier post.
Sponge hardness also may something do with throw angle. Using same top sheet & blade, a rubber with harder sponge will have a lower throw angle (flatter trajectory)

 

[jk1980]

But wouldn't the harder rubber (top sheet+ sponge) shoot the ball off quicker with lesser spin and a more flatter trajectory ?

I don't think so. You believe that the ball would bounce of the hard rubber straight away without penetrating the rubber, but this is not correct in my experience.
Simply take a pretty hard rubber 50° or harder on the ESN scale. If you shoot a ball at it with the speed of a push (and not a drive or loop) then the ball will simply drop of the bat perhaps 10 cm. Do the same with the a rubber that has 45° and you will see that the ball will not really drop off it but rather catapult from it in a straight line for 20cm. That is why hard and chinese rubbers are awesome for the short game. You can basically drop the ball a few cm behind the net, while you could not do that with a softer rubber that would by itself already catapult that ball 20cm of the blade.

I did a test with my Amicus Prime having it set to serve pretty short serves. I then placed bats with different hardness rubbers in an 45° angle so that the ball would fall onto them. Then i measures how close i would need to move that bat towards the net to still have the ball passively clear the net without any force being applied to the blade.
The difference was quite easily spottable. A hurricane 8 would need to be basically 10cm from the net to have the ball bounce over it while a nittaku fastarc g-1 would achieve the same while being 21cm away. The g-1 has so much catapult by its own, that you will have a very hard time playing a ball that is only "bouncing" off the bat less than 20 cm.

Of course there are tradeoffs. A harder sponge needs more speed to properly generate spin, because you can not count on the ball easily penetrating the sponge and pulling it up. If you just drop the ball on the table on your side and play a loop, this will be more easy with a softer rubber, because you can control the amount of sponge penetration, but if a ball comes at you fast the same soft rubber might have problems with a lower trajectory through having the ball hit through the sponge onto the blade and catapult of prematurely before you generated enough spin and torque to drag it up.

 

[James Z]

I don't think so. You believe that the ball would bounce of the hard rubber straight away without penetrating the rubber, but this is not correct in my experience.
Simply take a pretty hard rubber 50° or harder on the ESN scale. If you shoot a ball at it with the speed of a push (and not a drive or loop) then the ball will simply drop of the bat perhaps 10 cm. Do the same with the a rubber that has 45° and you will see that the ball will not really drop off it but rather catapult from it in a straight line for 20cm. That is why hard and chinese rubbers are awesome for the short game. You can basically drop the ball a few cm behind the net, while you could not do that with a softer rubber that would by itself already catapult that ball 20cm of the blade.

I did a test with my Amicus Prime having it set to serve pretty short serves. I then placed bats with different hardness rubbers in an 45° angle so that the ball would fall onto them. Then i measures how close i would need to move that bat towards the net to still have the ball passively clear the net without any force being applied to the blade.
The difference was quite easily spottable. A hurricane 8 would need to be basically 10cm from the net to have the ball bounce over it while a nittaku fastarc g-1 would achieve the same while being 21cm away. The g-1 has so much catapult by its own, that you will have a very hard time playing a ball that is only "bouncing" off the bat less than 20 cm.

Of course there are tradeoffs. A harder sponge needs more speed to properly generate spin, because you can not count on the ball easily penetrating the sponge and pulling it up. If you just drop the ball on the table on your side and play a loop, this will be more easy with a softer rubber, because you can control the amount of sponge penetration, but if a ball comes at you fast the same soft rubber might have problems with a lower trajectory through having the ball hit through the sponge onto the blade and catapult of prematurely before you generated enough spin and torque to drag it up.

I am not sure if the "design of experiments" is completely valid because

1. You are using a push stroke to compare 45 degree & 50 degree rubbers. Push stroke is probably the least valid test especially for a spinny inverted type rubber and I don't boost as it is not legal but for a boosted inverted this test may be even more invalid. Generally using the loops, counter loops lob, block may be more valid tests & even flat hitting may be more valid than push. Still fora push or flat hit, the ball will have a more curvy trajectory (though teh the curve angle may be only like 5 degrees or 10 degrees at best even for 45 degree rubber of same type

2. Comparing two different brand names like Hurricane & & FacstArc may be an invalid test because we do not know the structure of top sheet oe sponge & how they are glued together etc.

IMO a valid test would be comparing the same exact top sheet with different sponges or same sponge using different top sheets with strokes other than a push Imentioned above. in addition to a push stroke. All these test performed using same glue & same blade & with same another rubber on other side (if used)

My personal experience is that for all rubbers (eaning sponge+top sheet) I have tested in actual match situations in leagues & tournments is that softer sponges had a higher throw angle (more curvy trajectory).
I have used Yinhe Mercury for over 10 years but few years ago released in 3 different sponge versions with same top sheet soft ,medium & hard. I also tested Tenergy, Dignics and few other European rubbers.
Over the years I have tested lot of other similar rubbers with varying sponge hardnesses such as TSP New Magnet (Chop or Drive) , TSP 730 & Globe 999 (both with extra soft, soft, medium, hard, extra hard sponges), Sriver & Sriver FX or Mark V & Mark V GPS & few other too many to remember

In all situations above, my personal experience was that the softer versions of same brand had higher throw angle for all strokes.
Also if you compare Mark V to Globe 999 with similar hardness sponge the results were not even close. 999 had a much higher throw angle for most strokes. Of course I admit this may not be a valid test because the top sheet of 999 is far more stickier than mark V. This I suspect may be the case with Hurricane & FastArc. To me Hurricane has much more stickier top sheet than FastArc. (this seems tobe teh case with almost all Chinese & non-Chinese rubbers)
.

 

[Lazer]

To everyone who believes a Hard rubber has lower trajectory than a soft one.
Listen to Dan talking...

Tenergy 05 FX Rubber Review | With Kalinikos Kreanga (tabletennisdaily.com)

Cheers
L-zr

 

[James Z]

To everyone who believes a Hard rubber has lower trajectory than a soft one.
Listen to Dan talking...

Tenergy 05 FX Rubber Review | With Kalinikos Kreanga (tabletennisdaily.com)

Cheers
L-zr

6:47 of the video > I quote Kreanga "I can't do it with 05 . It will go straight"
Case closed . Have a nice day.

Also BTW FX is Butterfly notation refers to speed-gluing or boosting rubber such as in Sriver FX was duringspeed gluing era.
Yasaka used GPS notation as for Mark V GPS.
So if one enagages in illegal speed-gluing or boosting, FX will arc even more (than an unboosted FX) while also being a little faster than unboosted FX
Increased spin of FX in this context gives more control.
Kranga also explains how the 05 gets more power with 05 on forehand as he can pull his hand from under the table whereas he mostly plays his backhand above table level (early part of viedo)

PS:- I have lots of disagreements with Dan on various issues, one is where Dan seriously believes Ma Long is the GOAT. I doubt if he had even seen many videos on matches between Joo Sae Hyuk & Ma Long or between Joo Sae Hyuk & Kong Linghui (and how incredibly close they were & what would have happened if the 4 changes to limit pips after 1998 were not there...in one video Joo even beat Ma Long) . i challenge Dan to hold challenge match on a somewhat level & fair playing field between Ma Long & either Chen Weixing or Hou Yingchao with everyone using 1.7 mm unboosted rubbers & with Hou or Chen using High Aspect Ratio Super Long PIps. If Ma Long can beat either one of them, then he has earned the right to play the real GOAT Joo Sae Hyuk 😊 Ok maybe Waldner may come close to Joo Sae Hyuk but it would be a 51-49 toos up with 1.7mm sponge.
(But of course ITTF does NOT want a level & fair playing field because it would end up making the sport more popular with more rallies if the sport had few more choppers. The two-winged-looper monopolized ITTF wants to increase third ball & fifth ball boosted up rallies to eliminate any remaining spectator interest left)

I agree with Dan. Kreanga's backhand is just ridiculous. Guess who beat Kreanga in 2003 WITTC Semi Finals. and guess what would have happened in the finals, if the 1998 Aspect Ratio rule had not passed (Not to mean to imply Schlager did not deserve to win. He reached the finals slaying dragon after dragon)