Changes in Table Tennis

[Baal]

I feel that in many of their rule changes and approaches towards making the changes, the ITTF has an attitude of being actively hostile to players and their wishes. Contemptuous and condescending. This attitude has to change, but it will only change with new leadership.

A few of the changes have been ok (like 11 point games), and a few may have actually been necessary in the long run (celluloid balls are a problem from a safety perspective in the factories that make them, and Chinese lives matter). However, I am wondering why the ITTF saw fit to make the new plastic balls larger than the previous celluloid ones? Who wanted that? Even if you made celluloid balls in the 40+ size, they would have less spin, speed, and they would be less round, and people would not like them. Who among players really wants a higher net? Certainly nobody who plays with any sort of pips, no defender, no quick blockers. If you want even less diversisty in play styles, that is how you would do it. I don't miss speed glue, but the booster ban is simply silly. All it does is drive up the price of equipment. The serve hiding rule is completely unnecessary now if you see how top players are attacking pretty much every serve now, and the balls have contributed to that. All we have constant serve rule controversies that have a bad effect on matches (not to mention strife on forums).

In the end, is not all of this tinkering with the rules just a cover for the failure of ITTF to promote the sport effectively? (ITTF leadership believes that obviously THEY can't be the problem, the problem must be with the game itself, so we have to change it, even as the video feeds they provide are of embarrassingly low quality).

And like many other international sports federations, they answer to nobody and fix the rules in a way that ensures their own continuation in leadership positions that offer all sorts of opportunities to take bribes. ITTF is basically FIFA-lite, only now with even less money.

 

[Michael Dalnoot]

Wow amazing !

 

[Baal]

I'm still not entirely sure who will benefit,but I see what you mean.

However, surely once defenders adjust to playing lower over the net, it will be much harder for the attacker to lift the ball. And even If the ball has to be chopped a little bit higher, the attacker will still be at a disadvantage as they can't hit a powerful shot as chances are it won't clear the net due to there still being a lot of backspin, just a higher barrier to clear. I can see an increase in the "push one, spin one" technique of playing against choppers. (or push one, slap one)

If you have ever played a really good defender (there is one at my club at 2700 named Li Kewei, another former CNT player at the next club across town named Wang (Eddie) Hao, and a girl here from China name Vivian Li who is around 2400) you find that they are able to hit consistently balls with varying underspin spin that barely cross the net, like a laser. Take that away, and they would be a lot less effective.

 

[Suga D]

I feel that in many of their rule changes and approaches towards making the changes, the ITTF has an attitude of being actively hostile to players and their wishes. Contemptuous and condescending. This attitude has to change, but it will only change with new leadership.

A few of the changes have been ok (like 11 point games), and a few may have actually been necessary in the long run (celluloid balls are a problem from a safety perspective in the factories that make them, and Chinese lives matter). However, I am wondering why the ITTF saw fit to make the new plastic balls larger than the previous celluloid ones? Who wanted that? Even if you made celluloid balls in the 40+ size, they would have less spin, speed, and they would be less round, and people would not like them. Who among players really wants a higher net? Certainly nobody who plays with any sort of pips, no defender, no quick blockers. If you want even less diversisty in play styles, that is how you would do it. I don't miss speed glue, but the booster ban is simply silly. All it does is drive up the price of equipment. The serve hiding rule is completely unnecessary now if you see how top players are attacking pretty much every serve now, and the balls have contributed to that. All we have constant serve rule controversies that have a bad effect on matches (not to mention strife on forums).

In the end, is not all of this tinkering with the rules just a cover for the failure of ITTF to promote the sport effectively? (ITTF leadership believes that obviously THEY can't be the problem, the problem must be with the game itself, so we have to change it, even as the video feeds they provide are of embarrassingly low quality).

And like many other international sports federations, they answer to nobody and fix the rules in a way that ensures their own continuation in leadership positions that offer all sorts of opportunities to take bribes. ITTF is basically FIFA-lite, only now with even less money.

I feel this is pretty much on point.


@Baal
Sorry for drifting offtopic. My friend has sent me this pic when he was playing last time. Is this club where you also play?

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

I feel that in many of their rule changes and approaches towards making the changes, the ITTF has an attitude of being actively hostile to players and their wishes. Contemptuous and condescending. This attitude has to change, but it will only change with new leadership.

A few of the changes have been ok (like 11 point games), and a few may have actually been necessary in the long run (celluloid balls are a problem from a safety perspective in the factories that make them, and Chinese lives matter). However, I am wondering why the ITTF saw fit to make the new plastic balls larger than the previous celluloid ones? Who wanted that? Even if you made celluloid balls in the 40+ size, they would have less spin, speed, and they would be less round, and people would not like them. Who among players really wants a higher net? Certainly nobody who plays with any sort of pips, no defender, no quick blockers. If you want even less diversisty in play styles, that is how you would do it. I don't miss speed glue, but the booster ban is simply silly. All it does is drive up the price of equipment. The serve hiding rule is completely unnecessary now if you see how top players are attacking pretty much every serve now, and the balls have contributed to that. All we have constant serve rule controversies that have a bad effect on matches (not to mention strife on forums).

In the end, is not all of this tinkering with the rules just a cover for the failure of ITTF to promote the sport effectively? (ITTF leadership believes that obviously THEY can't be the problem, the problem must be with the game itself, so we have to change it, even as the video feeds they provide are of embarrassingly low quality).

And like many other international sports federations, they answer to nobody and fix the rules in a way that ensures their own continuation in leadership positions that offer all sorts of opportunities to take bribes. ITTF is basically FIFA-lite, only now with even less money.

Great post. Well explained.


Sent from the Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

My main gripe is the difference between all the brands, as you say.

May I ask what the changes to aspect ratio/pips density were and what this meant for top level play? I didn't know those were rules changes so would like to know more

The net result of the aspect Ratio rule was to make pips less able to generate heavy backspin.

I think the legal ratio was changed from 1:1.3 to 1:1.1.

The stated goal of the Aspect Ratio rule was to make pips more predictable. But the rule left certain rubbers that were unpredictable legal and eliminated a few rubbers which most of the top pips players used and the actual effect was to ban rubbers that gave defensive players more spin and therefore more of a chance.

The reduction of pips density in 2004 also resulted in the ability of a pips player to produce backspin to be decreased.

Add the increased ball size to the mix and this made it much harder to be a chopper.

That video by DTop really is worth watching. He presents a lot of really good info even though he presents it as comedy.


Sent from the Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

 

[Baal]

Suga, there are three clubs of that level in Houston. That picture is of a club I rarely play at. It is quite good, though.

 

[Shuki]

Ofc it does, just how many hours do you think professionals put into their serve practice trying to get the ball as low as you can get to the net

No it really doesn't. The pro's adapted to the ball change and getting the ball low on their serves with the change to plastic didn't they? saying a change of 1cm will be too much for the pro's to adjust to make table tennis pro's look pathetic. They can adjust just as the members at my club were able to...

Thinking of the different trajectories of a topspin and a chop i see a clear disadvantage for the chopper.
Have you ever seen Ruwen Filus or Wang Xi play? Ever seen how low over the net their chops sometimes fly? Please tell me then who will have a harder time to adjust?
I think the answer is pretty clear.
Attackers don't have to adjust that much because of the arcs they produce.

Not sure if defenders would truly suffer as much as you think. It could go either way. With a higher net, it's harder to find that "kill" ball for the attackers.

Anyway, all sports change. If you haven't like any of the changes made, what would you like to have changed instead?
I

 

[Suga D]

Suga, there are three clubs of that level in Houston. That picture is of a club I rarely play at. It is quite good, though.

Thanks for your reply. My friend isn't there very often though. The CCC Chinese Community Center is closer for him. I want to visit him next year, so hopefully i have a chance to see a few people...

...Anyway, all sports change. If you haven't like any of the changes made, what would you like to have changed instead?
I

Shuki, please ask yourself: do they really?
[Emoji15]
Did Tennis have so many changes, or Football?
Could you then please list up the sports that have had so many major changes like ballsize changes etc? Would be really interesting for me to know...

Anyhow, did i really write i didn't like ANY of the changes or has this rather been a misinterpretation?Maybe you want to re-read my posts...
Probably I haven't made myself clear enough
[Emoji6]
I'm pretty much with Baal on this.
See I'm totally fine with the 21 to 11 change.

Also the speedglue-ban makes totally sense to me, whereas the booster-ban doesn't make sense at all!
Certainly we don't need Toluol and Hexal addicts, but do Boosters contain these 'ingredients'? Well, the one's i've tested didn't.

The change from celluloid to plastic makes totally sense, whereas the change from 40 to 40+ at the same time doesn't!
But actually i would find it interesting to see how a 38mm P-Ball would perform!

 

[Shuki]

Shuki, please ask yourself: do they really?
[Emoji15]
Did Tennis have so many changes, or Football?
Could you then please list up the sports that have had so many major changes like ballsize changes etc? Would be really interesting for me to know...

Anyhow, did i really write i didn't like ANY of the changes or has this rather been a misinterpretation?Maybe you want to re-read my posts...
Probably I haven't made myself clear enough
[Emoji6]
I'm pretty much with Baal on this.
See I'm totally fine with the 21 to 11 change.

Also the speedglue-ban makes totally sense to me, whereas the booster-ban doesn't make sense at all!
Certainly we don't need Toluol and Hexal addicts, but do Boosters contain these 'ingredients'? Well, the one's i've tested didn't.

The change from celluloid to plastic makes totally sense, whereas the change from 40 to 40+ at the same time doesn't!
But actually i would find it interesting to see how a 38mm P-Ball would perform!

Yes, the sports really do go through changes. A quick google search of any sport's changes gives you a bit of insight, table tennis has had less than any that I've found. I don't want to say "go use google!" and not provide any evidence at all so here's one of the links I found.

This one is for basketball. http://hooptactics.com/Basketball_Basics_History They've changed the ball on many occasions, hoop size, height of the hoop, backboard size, number of players allowed on a team, etc.

Baal is completely right that they go about the changes in the wrong way, but the changes themselves aren't much of a problem unless you decide that they are.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

The net effect of most of the changes does seem to make it harder for a defensive player to compete at the highest levels.


Sent from the Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

 

[Baal]

Thanks for your reply. My friend isn't there very often though. The CCC Chinese Community Center is closer for him. I want to visit him next year, so hopefully i have a chance to see a few people...

Be sure to let me know.

 

[Jake Arnold Lejos]

Hello!

 

[phillypong]

First change to make is to ban all pimples in official tournaments. They only make the sport weird to watch and to play.

 

[Suga D]

First change to make is to ban all pimples in official tournaments. They only make the sport weird to watch and to play.

And then what's next? Everyone use the same rubber? Same blade? Same table?
The sport lives of its diversity and you just want to kill that and make the sport more boring to watch for viewers, only 'cause your not smart enough to know how to play against them?
If you want to kill my sport i have five letters for you. GTFOH!
Congrats on having wrote the smartest comment of the day...NOT!

Yes, the sports really do go through changes. A quick google search of any sport's changes gives you a bit of insight, table tennis has had less than any that I've found. I don't want to say "go use google!" and not provide any evidence at all so here's one of the links I found.

This one is for basketball. http://hooptactics.com/Basketball_Basics_History They've changed the ball on many occasions, hoop size, height of the hoop, backboard size, number of players allowed on a team, etc.

Baal is completely right that they go about the changes in the wrong way, but the changes themselves aren't much of a problem unless you decide that they are.

Nice try, Shuki. I think I'm getting what you're trying to explain, but please start trying to see it from a different perspective.
Carl is quite right when he wrote:

The net effect of most of the changes does seem to make it harder for a defensive player to compete at the highest levels.

Totally agreed, Carl.

So Shuki, please don't get me wrong and I surely don't know what level you play, but you are highly oversimplyfying things here IMHO. I'm far from being a pro but i know a few and feel motivated to share their sight on these things.

First of all i agree that hoop size and backboard size do matter on free throws in Basketball, but how much would they matter on dunks and Slam dunks. But i'm no Basketball expert, so i don't want to be assuming.

Anyhow....
Of course anyone can adapt to a higher net given some time and practice, and especially pros should be able to do so, but for what? As i wrote before there are other things that are more urgent to need to be fixed IMHO.

Secondly i think the two sports are way to different to be seriously compared to each other.

See, as we all know, tabletennis is very technical and especially on higher levels it's a game of repetition and it's mainly trained reflexes and learned automatisms.
Now guess what it takes to get these things into automatism?
Practice, practice and more practice.
Just go and ask any pro how long it takes to get these things into automatism! A change to a higher net would completely throw off the trained muscle memory etc.

The change to P-Balls hasn't done much in their favour and was one of the worst things the ITTF has done, by not having made stricter regulations and specifications about bounce characteristics etc.

Once again, changes that are good for the sport are welcome, but not changes that are just halfway thought to the end just for the sake of makin' changes and as i've wrote before. There are things to fixed that are way more important!

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

For those who would ban pimples out rubbers, a few interesting facts.

Pips out rubbers and antispin are often called junk rubbers. But back in the 1950s when sponge rubber first appeared it was called junk rubber and there was a large outcry to ban it. Pips out rubber is the original article. Smooth rubber is the innovation that enabled offensive play to dominate the sport.

My experience has been, usually, when someone wants junk rubber banned it is more often because they don't play that well against it rather than any other reason. In my opinion, when this is the case, the answer would be to learn how to play against pips out rubbers.

Banning pips would mean the end of defensive play. No more players like Joo Se Hyuk. And anyone who says watching him play is boring, well, perhaps that person should switch to tennis which is a fine sport.

But as far as I am concerned, there have been far too many rules that make it harder for defensive players to excel. And I don't think that is all that good for the sport.

But: here: ITTF's future of the sport:

Now this looks fun as hell and I would enjoy playing it. But it is not table tennis. It is something else.

By the way, in that sport using 4 tables, I doubt you could use pips all that effectively. And the art of over the table play is totally not there. So, if you like the art and nuance of table tennis, many of the rule changes have eliminated some of that art as it has made it harder for defenders to stand with the top loopers.


Sent from the Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Btw: for those of you who think pips are boring to watch, here, one of the best matches ever:

Kong Linghui vs Joo Se Hyuk in the 2003 China Open:

Sent from the Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

 

[jmillsy2]

Btw: for those of you who think pips are boring to watch, here, one of the best matches ever:

Kong Linghui vs Joo Se Hyuk in the 2003 China Open:

Sent from the Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

Watching clips off Joo from around 2003 makes me wonder whether, had he won that final against Schlager, he would have won more competitions.

I just feel like whilst he is an amazing player, he has suffered from a lack of wins in international competition and perhaps having the booster of being a world champion would have elevated him even further than he got (though reaching world number 5 in an era which heavily disadvantages defensive players is nothing to be sniffed at!)

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

That close to a WTTC Singles title and shortly after ITTF made the pips density rule change. Hmmmm, I wonder....think about it.


Sent from the Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

 

[Garrison]

The downside of pips are always people in lower leagues that play way higher with them than they usually would. It is just frustrating to play against someone who you know is technically way lower skilled than yourself, yet you struggle.