Discussion: Is it worth trying to slow the game down again?

[Gozo Zyreruna]

ITTF went from 38 to 40plus because the game was too fast and not tv viewer friendly...

so we go to 42 pro max this round?

ESN rubber 60 degree hardness will be the new medium hardness...

 

[Tyce]

The game is slow enough as it is. Even at the top level, once someone steps back and lobs, it's incredibly hard to smash a ball past them.
The ball slows down so much that I'm still regularly too early on my swing.

 

[Zezima]

I know it has not much to do with the initial question...

This sport is dying. If you like it or not. dying in terms of in the next years coming there will be only super amateur players if I have to put in terms of rating: Below currents 1300TTR and the other half being pros who work daily with coaches etc.

I think rating wise it will not change much but the player pool in between will shrink further.

I don't know what this sport needs to become popular but when I compare it to padel for example or even pickleball the learning curve is too steep. It is just way too hard to learn and too much effort to selflearn in comparison to those other racket sports I mentioned. It's is also less socializing compared to those.

Taking padel as an example it was a noname sport a couple years ago here. And now the playerbase already bigger than tabletennis. I personally enjoy it a lot myself. Long rallys, cool ball exhanges, no problems with complex serve returning, there is spin but its not overwhelming you too much. Lots of tactic and its about placement.

But tabletennis has one advantage and that is you can play it even if your super old. There are many examples of that. Padel, Tennis etc are just too hard to play in old age.

So why can't we make this sport more popular? My guess is noone feels responsible to teach the newcomers. The ones who do are players playing very low level themselves. Better players are only training together in their small circle.

So what is the key element that makes table tennis so fun? Why is the aim to slow it down? Some players will always play faster if they put in the work. So it doesn't really achieve much. Isn't it the problem to get beginners to intermediate level asap so they don't give up after a few session after realizing how hard this sport is to begin with?

If we could solve that problem, I think there would be more people sticking with this sport and once they reach intermediate level games will be even more fun for all of the participants. Right now its just declining a lot and I even see many people giving up and switching to Padel/pickleball etc. something. And the reason is not because it's too fast I think.

 

[ajtatosmano2]

Balsa, yes. Though not so sure about paulownia aka kiri. Most Butterfly blades use it as the core and average around 85-90g.

But yes I agree it’s not the speed alone that’s dominating today’s game. It’s the speed + spin = power that can really only be achieved with 185-200g+ setups… I think the word is the heavy inertia generated by these setups.

Though the important outcome is still achieved. The overall game slows down slightly and you naturally get more variety in styles and equipment combos again. Some players might keep a boosted 40 deg H3 on FH with a much lighter BH. Others might go SPs with a heavy wood blade. Twiddling could be a thing. The point is there’s finally a trade off again instead of everyone just copy pasta-ing to the same similar max power setup. Existing infrastructure and dimensions stays the same.

So yeah a light attackers racket can feel fast but won’t produce the same loaded ball quality - a defender doesn’t always have to chop they can borrow and redirect “speed only” easily.

Ironically, oversized modern defensive blades are probably one of the few areas that would benefit. The larger head size increases leverage and dwell time while pips on the other side themselves are extremely light, so these defenders can still maintain good racket acceleration and pips disruption variation without needing the same overall mass as what double inverted attackers need.

Using max sponge ESN, D09c, Zyre 03, heavily boosted H3 on one side no problem either to get below ~175g.

More inertia is good for your swing, once the ball leaves the blade speed and spin are the only factors, because the ball's weight is fixed. It just feels heavier because players can impart better spin with a heavier racket.
For defenders, more spin is beneficial, playing against fast but less spinny balls is giving them less variety to work with. The spinnier 38 mm meta was more beneficial for choppers.
Short pips players don't go for heavy wood blades, they are the ones who benefit the least from weight and who actually use light balsa blades today. You were rigth about kiri, I forgot that it's used as a thick core.
Anyway, I think the variety we would be getting is more hitting rather than spinning and even more physical work to make up for the limiting factors. Women's game is getting more interesting these days, making it harder to finish points would send it back to the more boring constant back and forth. It's very hard to finish a point already even at the semipro level.

 

[ajtatosmano2]

I know it has not much to do with the initial question...

This sport is dying. If you like it or not. dying in terms of in the next years coming there will be only super amateur players if I have to put in terms of rating: Below currents 1300TTR and the other half being pros who work daily with coaches etc.

I think rating wise it will not change much but the player pool in between will shrink further.

I don't know what this sport needs to become popular but when I compare it to padel for example or even pickleball the learning curve is too steep. It is just way too hard to learn and too much effort to selflearn in comparison to those other racket sports I mentioned. It's is also less socializing compared to those.

Taking padel as an example it was a noname sport a couple years ago here. And now the playerbase already bigger than tabletennis. I personally enjoy it a lot myself. Long rallys, cool ball exhanges, no problems with complex serve returning, there is spin but its not overwhelming you too much. Lots of tactic and its about placement.

But tabletennis has one advantage and that is you can play it even if your super old. There are many examples of that. Padel, Tennis etc are just too hard to play in old age.

So why can't we make this sport more popular? My guess is noone feels responsible to teach the newcomers. The ones who do are players playing very low level themselves. Better players are only training together in their small circle.

So what is the key element that makes table tennis so fun? Why is the aim to slow it down? Some players will always play faster if they put in the work. So it doesn't really achieve much. Isn't it the problem to get beginners to intermediate level asap so they don't give up after a few session after realizing how hard this sport is to begin with?

If we could solve that problem, I think there would be more people sticking with this sport and once they reach intermediate level games will be even more fun for all of the participants. Right now its just declining a lot and I even see many people giving up and switching to Padel/pickleball etc. something. And the reason is not because it's too fast I think.

Table tennis can't match padel or pickleball, it is too complicated at it's core. Hardbat, pingpong tried to return to the origins and it did not work out. Longer rallies migth not be the solution, I think it would make the sport even more boring. We already have long rallies and we can't afford longer matches. That's why there were discussions about 6 point sets, or best of 3 matches. That's why the deciders are so short in many leagues.
The only reason people are watching tennis so much is tradition + it's a 'manly' game, not because of the long rallies.
I think the main thing table tennis needs is good management on high levels. I think MLTT is amazing, but it didn't get enough marketing. I hope the new platform where you can play ranked matches takes off. Imagine how cool it would be if you could see all the ranked players in the school and kids could play ranked matches in afternoon in school tables. School tournaments to qualify for interschool ones!
It might worth a shot to create a streamer/influencer tournament, that's a good way you can reach young people. Creating a social media presence with fun challenges, training courses. Make the tickets cheap and market the tournaments locally.
Not that nobody done these things, there were/are plenty of tries, but all has to go together with everything else or it's wasted money in my opinion. Anyway, I got a little off topic.

 

[Tyce]

Table tennis will never be a mainstream sport just like blitz and freestyle doesn't fix the popularity of chess.
They appeal to people who are drawn to the complex nature of the game.
The problem is a cultural one. Being smart, and proud of it, is all but frowned upon in "Western civilisation".
Mastering such a game takes patience, discipline, willpower. None of these qualities are abundantly available in current society.

And then look at cultures who apply value to excellence in difficult areas... Voila, you get more popularity in table tennis.

 

[CyNyC]

1) Increase net height
2) Get back to 38mm ball

More spin than speed, still athletic (to generate that spin), no big changes in mid/long distance rallies.

And less annoying multiple sky-high lobs from 10m...when I smash I want my ball to go light speed with no chance for my opponent

 

[chinacurious]

Badminton is actually way faster

Per ChatGPT:

In elite fast rallies, the time between contacts is surprisingly short in both sports — but especially in table tennis.

Approximate peak-rally contact intervals:

Sport	Typical elite fast-rally interval
Badminton	~0.4–0.8 seconds
Table Tennis	~0.15–0.35 seconds

 

[blahness]

Per ChatGPT:

In elite fast rallies, the time between contacts is surprisingly short in both sports — but especially in table tennis.

Approximate peak-rally contact intervals:

Sport	Typical elite fast-rally interval
Badminton	~0.4–0.8 seconds
Table Tennis	~0.15–0.35 seconds

That is some insane hallucination numbers for TT. You wouldnt even be able to react if these were the numbers.

 

[Tyce]

1) Increase net height
2) Get back to 38mm ball

More spin than speed, still athletic (to generate that spin), no big changes in mid/long distance rallies.

And less annoying multiple sky-high lobs from 10m...when I smash I want my ball to go light speed with no chance for my opponent

Balloon defense has been around since at least the 90s, popularized by Appelgren

 

[chinacurious]

That is some insane hallucination numbers for TT. You wouldnt even be able to react if these were the numbers.

True. Google AI comes to same conclusion with more realistic numbers though:

AI Overview




Table tennis has less time between ball contacts on fast rallies. Because players stand much closer to each other, the table is smaller, and the ball travels a shorter distance, table tennis requires faster reflexes and a quicker reaction time to return the ball. [1, 2]
A direct comparison of the two sports shows:

Table Tennis

• Hits Per Second: Average of \(\approx 2.00\) hits per second during active rallies.
• Time to React: Extremely short. The ball travels \(\approx 2.74 \text{ meters}\) across the net, giving players fractions of a second to react to heavy spin and speed.
• Rally Pace: Very rapid, continuous bursts of quick, close-quarters exchanges. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Badminton

• Hits Per Second: Average of \(\approx 1.72\) hits per second.
• Time to React: The shuttlecock is the fastest projectile in racket sports (can travel over \(\approx 400 \text{ km/h}\)), but because of the large court size, players have a slightly longer distance and time to react as the birdie travels through the air.
• Rally Pace: Requires more full-body agility and endurance to cover the longer distances between shots. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Edit: actually this just seems to use the results from one particular analysis here: https://tabletennis523.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/fastest-sport-table-tennis-vs-badminton/

CBA to research more atm, but I doubt you have less time to react in fast rallies in badminton, which is in my opinion the correct way do define fast.

Edit2: Ok, I looked a tiny bit more into it. In the absolute extremes Badminton could be faster by my definition, but not "way faster". I would still say on regular top level attack vs attack rallies TT is faster.

 

[blahness]

True. Google AI comes to same conclusion with more realistic numbers though:

AI Overview




Table tennis has less time between ball contacts on fast rallies. Because players stand much closer to each other, the table is smaller, and the ball travels a shorter distance, table tennis requires faster reflexes and a quicker reaction time to return the ball. [1, 2]
A direct comparison of the two sports shows:

Table Tennis

• Hits Per Second: Average of \(\approx 2.00\) hits per second during active rallies.
• Time to React: Extremely short. The ball travels \(\approx 2.74 \text{ meters}\) across the net, giving players fractions of a second to react to heavy spin and speed.
• Rally Pace: Very rapid, continuous bursts of quick, close-quarters exchanges. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Badminton

• Hits Per Second: Average of \(\approx 1.72\) hits per second.
• Time to React: The shuttlecock is the fastest projectile in racket sports (can travel over \(\approx 400 \text{ km/h}\)), but because of the large court size, players have a slightly longer distance and time to react as the birdie travels through the air.
• Rally Pace: Requires more full-body agility and endurance to cover the longer distances between shots. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Edit: actually this just seems to use the results from one particular analysis here: https://tabletennis523.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/fastest-sport-table-tennis-vs-badminton/

CBA to research more atm, but I doubt you have less time to react in fast rallies in badminton, which is in my opinion the correct way do define fast.

Edit2: Ok, I looked a tiny bit more into it. In the absolute extremes Badminton could be faster by my definition, but not "way faster". I would still say on regular top level attack vs attack rallies TT is faster.

You need to use better AI bro, the free versions always hallucinates like crazy...

 

[blahness]

I have another theory why lots of sports are kinda declining - young people simply dont have the time or money to play anymore with generational wealth inequality and youth poverty increasing. A lot of young people are way more invested in actually getting a good job and having a roof over their heads.

 

[Oliverpool]

Perhaps only allow anti spin rubbers. The game will definitely slow down


Winters antispin

 

[TTpastor]

I have another theory why lots of sports are kinda declining - young people simply dont have the time or money to play anymore with generational wealth inequality and youth poverty increasing. A lot of young people are way more invested in actually getting a good job and having a roof over their heads.

Or they don't play xyz because they are gaming on consoles and cell phones.

 

[Kenspin]

A comment by @Sp8e00 (about table tennis becoming boring to watch if nixing serve rules pushed outright serve success much higher) got me thinking. For me, the amount of points currently ended on the third or fourth ball already make high-level table tennis matches a bit of a dud sometimes. There's a reason people get excited by ralliers like Gauzy and creatives like Mohregard.

The change to 40+ was--ostensibly--to slow the game down and make it more watchable, but with the plastic ball having less spin and manufacturers making harder and faster rubbers all the time, it's hard to argue that that plan panned out.

So I wonder: Is it time to try again? What might make a real change in rally length (without necessarily swinging too hard in the other direction, e.g. 40+ shot defender rallies)? Do you all even agree that game is too fast?

For my part, I think changing the ball isn't the answer - there's evidence the plastic ball is slower, or at least slows down quicker, even if the tradeoff is it doesn't spin as well as celluloid. Perhaps a combination of larger size (again...) and spinnier alternative to ABS could work, but that almost feels like overengineering.

My suggestion would be a limit on rubber hardness, say H3 40d (or even 39) or under. It would have less impact on amateurs--where few of us can really hit through the sponge anyway--and would have more impact I think at the pro level, perhaps pushing the average rally length a stroke or two higher and making the sport more spectator-friendly. But we'd really need to see an analysis of average rally length overlaid with a trend line in the popularity of e.g. ESN50+ rubbers to see if that would really have any meaningful impact.

Maybe shorten the table? The thinking being that would make it harder to loop-drive or flick a ball at 100mph without risking overshooting.

I'm eager to hear other ideas.

A suggested equipment change is to slow the table down by using a more dampening material or surface. This could be introduced only at the top level and would not be as radical as a net size or table size change. Sort of clay court for table tennis.

 

[banbekas]

You guys should try 44 mm ball.

 

[Archosaurus]

A suggested equipment change is to slow the table down by using a more dampening material or surface. This could be introduced only at the top level and would not be as radical as a net size or table size change. Sort of clay court for table tennis.

I feel like the less contrived it is, the better. This would be a super duper contrived change IMO.

 

[Oliverpool]

You guys should try 44 mm ball.

Actually it’s almost a different game altogether it’s quite fun too! U get a lot of rally and can almost control every shot to hit the base line or side line

 

[banbekas]

Actually it’s almost a different game altogether it’s quite fun too! U get a lot of rally and can almost control every shot to hit the base line or side line

ITTF should do it. Maybe 43 is good.