Equipment Reviews on TT forums

[anchorschmidt]

I've kind of stopped taking rubber reviews all that seriously because no one knows better what I should use except for me and the players who train with me and have a higher skill level.

Tbh, there aren't that many different kinds of rubbers. It's mostly just a combination of hardness, tackiness, elasticity, throw angle and the in-built catapult effect. I kind of know what I want.

As for blades, I think that there are many more combinations and types so I follow their reviews.

In the end, I don't think that I've ever played badly because of equipment.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

"Man, this blade feels awesome for smacking the hell out of the ball, you get this great crisp feeling. But it is really hard to control in short game or at mid and long distance looping."

Reviews:

I like to write them. I like to read them. I am entertained by them. I have fun trying to put into words what I feel when I use a blade or rubber. But it is true, they may not always be so useful because everyone is starting from different technique and level. I find the idea of the video reviews that Dan and Tom at TTDaily do fun. I like them. But, I generally feel that Dan is a nice guy and does not want to state negative things so he often leaves out what a blade or rubber seems to do badly and only mentions things it does well, or at most makes note that it does not specialize in something without laying things on the line. As a result, a lot of people I know in NYC think he is being paid by whichever company's equipment he is reviewing and these friends have commented that the video reviews come off more like advertisements than honest reviews.

What am I getting at? A review should be able to say when a piece of equipment that is otherwise good, is flat out bad at something. Like a blade that is flat out bad at mid and long distance and only works well close to the table, a review should be able to spell that out and not leave it to the viewer to figure out that that is the case from watching the ball continue to hit the net or get dropped into the net. Or a blade that is hard to control in short game, where you can see that whether flipping or pushing, the receiver is having a hard time returning the ball on the table and then the comment is something like: "the flips were fast and direct."

So, I love Dan and I get that he likes to always be positive and I wouldn't want to change him or anything. But when a blade is dead bad at long distance and the ball keeps dropping into the net for both players, especially if one of them is ranked #1 in the world, it might be okay to say, "It does not perform well from mid and long distance" rather than saying "it strength is close to the table topspin rallies." I know....a player who is watching and paying attention can see when something is off and being alluded by referring to something else the blade does well. But it is okay to know that unless you get used to it, on a push you can pop the ball up with the ZJK SZLC or that the with the TC190 blade it is actually hard to push or flip and it is easy to hit the ball into the net or hit it long on a short serve even if your technique is top notch.

So you can see things like that which really do make those video reviews good, but it would be okay to say what a blade or rubber does badly when it is the case without it being a condemnation of the blade. "This blade is for close to the table attacking but if you plan to step back and play far from the table, this is not the blade for you because the amount of Zylon makes it hard to control from long range," is really an okay statement. Or, "this blade is fast and has a low arc which means you really have to get used to it or the whole short game is very hard to control, which means, for most players this blade would not be good for short game."

Anyway, every player will make their own reviews their own way and I do think those video reviews are a great service. But sometimes you do have to be able to read between the lines about the equipment being reviewed.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

When I talked about hitting the ball into the net or dropping the ball into the net, I tried to use the work d-u-m-p. I never knew that was a bad word but the forum would not let me use the word so I replaced it with hit and drop. haha.

 

[NextLevel]

I think that saying what a blade is supposedly good or bad at makes little sense apart from a comparison to another blade. Same for rubbers.

 

[Der_Echte]

That is the exact reason why you use a Spy Phone to make TTD posts when using your mobile phone.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

I think that saying what a blade is supposedly good or bad at makes little sense apart from a comparison to another blade. Same for rubbers.

To some extent that is true. But when you see a player hitting the ball into the net or popping the ball up, or hitting it out, and the audio track is saying "this blade has good control in the short game," the audio means less than if you see them making good shots and you can see how they are spinning the ball well and accurately on flips or that the pushes look low and heavy during that same audio.

So if the audio does not compare it to a different blade and you can see that the player is making good shots, and the audio actually says that the blade excels at that shot, then you can see that the player is making those shots competently even if you don't know the comparison to a different and popular blade with the same rubber. But if the audio says the blade is good at something while showing the player struggling, whether at the shot talked about or a different shot which the player isn't even doing, then you need to judge the commentary and dismiss much of what has been said as contrary to what you can see the players are capable of doing with the equipment.


Sent from my NSA SpyPhone using HijackTalk

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Also, in fairness, in the ZJK SZLC Dan did say it was a similar speed to the TB ALC but softer. In the TC190 review he said it had similar control and arc as the ZJK SZLC but was faster. So there are some blade to blade and company to company comparisons.

What I find a bit disconcerting is that when the equipment is hard to use for a particular aspect of play, often something else that it does better will be talked about instead.


Sent from my ThingaMajig (the real name can't be used or readers will need to be terminated) using SpyTalk

 

[Der_Echte]

I often mention that in a review that it is difficult for a product to excel at everything.

I always say that there are trade-offs or compromises to get a product to be excellent at something. Some products can excel at several things while being OK or manageable in others. Some products do just "Well" in everything with premium control (Allround Control Blade or Rubber). Some do just 1 or 2 things well and the rest not so good.

 

[mahomedy13]

I think that saying what a blade is supposedly good or bad at makes little sense apart from a comparison to another blade. Same for rubbers.

That is the reason i say review as a setup,and not a blade/rubber.this then removes the need for comparisons.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[haggisv]

I always thought Mark V and Sriver were excellent benchmarks, as they have been around 'forever', but I think the latest generation has probably not even tried them. Tenergy is probably a good modern benchmark, but I think it's too expensive for a lot of amateur players (like most of us) and some people simply refuse to use them.
Personally I would find any of these rubbers a good benchmark, and any comparison of characteristics to these rubbers provides an excellent reference point.

 

[amateurplayer]

I think the best way to test a rubber or blade is to use it with many other blades and rubbers respectively.
Then you can relate to it and get a correct picture of how it really plays.

I always thought Mark V and Sriver were excellent benchmarks, as they have been around 'forever', but I think the latest generation has probably not even tried them. Tenergy is probably a good modern benchmark, but I think it's too expensive for a lot of amateur players (like most of us) and some people simply refuse to use them.
Personally I would find any of these rubbers a good benchmark, and any comparison of characteristics to these rubbers provides an excellent reference point.

Everyone used Sriver and mark V while they were improving, But you can't compare a tesor to a non boosted Sriver/mark V, the characteristics are completely different.
I don't think it is too expensive for anyone with a decent level as you can use it for a relatively long time.

Sent from MI7 secret server (6.0000° S, 71.5000° E)

 

[mahomedy13]

whats happening to people's fones nowadays??it seems that all the top security and law enforcements have come to TTD and hijacked the connectionz,from the mafia rite to the M17

 

[mahomedy13]

I always thought Mark V and Sriver were excellent benchmarks, as they have been around 'forever', but I think the latest generation has probably not even tried them. Tenergy is probably a good modern benchmark, but I think it's too expensive for a lot of amateur players (like most of us) and some people simply refuse to use them.
Personally I would find any of these rubbers a good benchmark, and any comparison of characteristics to these rubbers provides an excellent reference point.

I am of the opinion that they are still excellent benchmarks(mark v and sriver),and people starting of often cannot control tenergys or tensors,so they resort to classic rubbers.

And most non tensors need a benchmark to test against,so why not compare against the best non tensors?

 

[amateurplayer]

I am of the opinion that they are still excellent benchmarks(mark v and sriver),and people starting of often cannot control tenergys or tensors,so they resort to classic rubbers.

And most non tensors need a benchmark to test against,so why not compare against the best non tensors?

I was speaking is general, he number of non tesors coming to the market today is less, and there is very less competition in non tesor rubbers due to the smaller market and most people end up buying mark V or sriver. And I dont think anyone compares when buying their first set of rubbers.(mostly because you can't go wrong choosing either of those)

Illuminati sent me

 

[mahomedy13]

I was speaking is general, he number of non tesors coming to the market today is less, and there is very less competition in non tesor rubbers due to the smaller market and most people end up buying mark V or sriver. And I dont think anyone compares when buying their first set of rubbers.(mostly because you can't go wrong choosing either of those)

Illuminati sent me

Lol.i was replying to haggisv's post,but nevertheless your point is valid.

Where i disagree though is the no. Of rubbers coming into the market.most chinese brands do not make any tensors,yet they mass produce due to the cheapness? of their rubbers.for ex. the legendry XP 2008 SUPER POWER,the quattro series, the air scirroco rubbers etc

 

[Der_Echte]

Rubbers are a unique thing to test. The same rubber might not play very well on what many consider to be a benchmark blade... Like Timo Boll Spirit... but might play OUTSTANDING on a different balde (Coincidentally also a benchmark blade) like say the Stiga Allround Classic or Clipper. Rasant is such a rubber that comes to mind, average on BTY ALC blades, but explosive dynamic on ALL+ flexy blades.

Point of that little ramble is one has to have some experience or judgment with the rubbers just to find or know what is going to work great on what, then we got the same differences of playing standard and ability to detect and articulate differences of performance.

You could also make the same mistake selecting rubbers for a blade test. Certain rubbers really only pair well with certain blades, so when testing blades, one should select a rubber that has decent performance on a wide range of blades. T05 is such a rubber everyone understands and is prolly the best one for consistency accros many different blades, but a lot of us do not have extra sheets of that sucker laying around. I personally use Aurus and XP 2008, which are also very consistant performers on a wide variety of different blades. T05 is prolly what Germans call Spitze for this, the top, Aurus and XP 2008 are not far behind in consistentcy of its performance level accross many baldes, so it is practical for me to use those, I always have a sheet or two or 20 of XP 2008 laying around.

Another related factor for balde teting is the uer/reviewer's experience and level using the consistent test rubbers accross a number of blades. Tehre is nothing like knowing your rubber and how it acts on your main blade and other blades. That makes it a lot easier for the reviewer to detect differences and articulate them in a review.

The ability to clearly articulate the good, average, and bad is probably one of the key things we reviewers need improvement upon, then the ability detect the performance levels is also a key are to improve in.

Carl mentioned the entertainment value of a review. As much as I would like to be a serious chap (Somewhere out there, HaggisV is laughing like a hyena at what I just said) I gotta have a little fun with how I word stuff sometimes, especially if the review is for TT forumers and I am not using the review to promote a product. (OMG !!! People actually do that on forums ???!!!)

 

[NextLevel]

Unfortunately, my experience in blade-rubber dependency has found it mostly to be a bunch of hogwash except in some clear specialist cases. Anyone can adapt their game to suit specific setups and as long as people glue the rubber properly to give it enough spring in the case of inverted, they can use just about any rubber on any blade. Even the so called unusable setups are usually because people want the setup to play exactly like their current setup, not because the particular setup is truly unplayable.

 

[haggisv]

As much as I would like to be a serious chap (Somewhere out there, HaggisV is laughing like a hyena at what I just said) I gotta have a little fun with how I word stuff sometimes, especially if the review is for TT forumers and I am not using the review to promote a product.

LOL, like the Schildkrot review? I agree.. humour can add to a review... and some people have a way with words

Comparisons I find the most useful personally, especially if I'm familiar with the rubber being compared to.

To me a review is certainly worth a lot more than just ratings, and a whole lot more than knowing nothing about the rubber, and having to go by the description in the packet!

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Yay, Haggisv is in town (sorry been busy lately and haven't been on TTD much)

I agree that Tensor-less rubbers are getting less and less. Like who still buy non-tensor Butterfly, Stiga, Tibhar, Donic, Andro, Yasaka, Xiom, just to name a few.
Even Chinese brands who are more active like Yinhe - all new rubbers are tensor like rubbers, even the (attacking) pip outs have tensor like sponge.
KTL (LKT) attempting this too.

imo, table tennis reviewing is extremely difficult - as mostly pointed out above:

Player:
Players level or more detailed - skills/technique
Players style

Equipment:
Type of blade
Type of rubber

Now the saying goes - no same 2 blades are the same, so also no 2 person are the same.
Now you need to match all 4 together and have a benchmark/review for the random Joe to understand?

Imo, random Joe can learn to adapt to new equipment - considering his level+style will be similar the reviewer.
Some times it is just by luck.

I have learn over the years, is that you have your "traditional" approach to recommending equipment - start off with allround with controlled rubbers. But you do get those exception where a OFF+ blade with fast rubbers will work too. The reason is - there is just too many reasons - thus making a benchmark/standard review near impossible.

So I can't tell you, this setup is great for block, or poor for top spin. 2nd reviewer may say the total opposite.
Then you sit with an audience that is very confused

I agree review is worth more than rating (I still don't understand how rating came to be).
But my advice is to read lots of reviews (from different reviewers) and let the audience decide.
I think this is way forums are useful, where a Equipment Q&A comes in handy (but it seems to be always the same person replying the same thing for all kinds of people - one medicine can't fix everything)