Looking for > Magic 77 on steroids

[merlin el mago]

I guess James Z it's pointing that the ITTF rules are not followed for people using boosters & all anti / long pips player must follow the rules!!!

He has reason, I used for recreative use treated long pips (enlarged & surface smoothed) and the difference is very very big.

So the ITTF rules are not followed with nobody (using booster), why on earth anti/LP players have to follow.

I play sanctioned tournement using legal equipment vs people that I see is using booster because the sound, the ball spin & speed are not the same that legal rubbers & can't complain about the fact.....but if the anti/LP aren't ITTf approved we can't use it!!!!!

If ITTF make rules, the rules must be controlled for referees or everybody (if tournament don't have referees, so if a rubber is boosted ITTF must provide and easy tool to verify for all level of players (including pro) in sanctioned tournaments

 

[Stuart Marquis]

I guess James Z it's pointing that the ITTF rules are not followed for people using boosters & all anti / long pips player must follow the rules!!!He has reason, I used for recreative use treated long pips (enlarged & surface smoothed) and the difference is very very big.So the ITTF rules are not followed with nobody (using booster), why on earth anti/LP players have to follow.I play sanctioned tournement using legal equipment vs people that I see is using booster because the sound, the ball spin & speed are not the same that legal rubbers & can't complain about the fact.....but if the anti/LP aren't ITTf approved we can't use it!!!!!If ITTF make rules, the rules must be controlled for referees or everybody (if tournament don't have referees, so if a rubber is boosted ITTF must provide and easy tool to verify for all level of players (including pro) in sanctioned tournaments

But the sensible solution to the problem you’re identifying is to make sure that all the rules are followed, not to break rule Y simply as a protest to someone else breaking rule X.James Z has repeatedly said words to the effect that we should ignore the rules on authorised racket coverings as if doing so is a form of protest against players ignoring the rules on speed-glue and boosters. But where does that tit-for-tat attitude get us? It would mean that two rules are now being routinely broken rather than one…that’s a worse overall position to be in in terms of having a regulated sport.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

I wonder if he knows that you know who he is?

Of course he knows.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

I can’t speak for others, but I enjoy the debate for the sake of the debate. And for me, when dealing with someone like James Z, the main purpose isn’t really to try and get him to back down or change his mind on a certain issue. What I’m really doing (with the help of James Z) is creating a dialogue around an issue that can be read and judged by other forum members. Useful info can come out of such dialogue, even when one party is not approaching things in a mature and reasonable way.

I agree with the principle. But it does not seem to me that what you describe above is actually what you are doing and often both sides seem to me to be on the immature side of things.

Still, it is discussion that people can glean some useful information from.

Also, to me, I see no winners in how you are debating with each other. I do see people trying to look like the winner. But, sometimes, at least for me, reading, that creates the opposite effect.

But the truth is, there is some good information that comes out of these discussions and it does make the forum more lively. So…..

 

[Stuart Marquis]

I agree with the principle. But it does not seem to me that what you describe above is actually what you are doing and often both sides seem to me to be on the immature side of things.

Still, it is discussion that people can glean some useful information from.

Also, to me, I see no winners in how you are debating with each other. I do see people trying to look like the winner. But, sometimes, at least for me, reading, that creates the opposite effect.

But the truth is, there is some good information that comes out of these discussions and it does make the forum more lively. So…..

I’d be interested to know which of my posts you thought was immature. I try to make all my posts reasonable and rational, and consistent with each other. I admit, some of my responses are more “jokey” that others…such as the post where I asked James Z if he’d ever tried gluing one rubber on top of another…but even then it does serve to make a serious point; namely that if there wasn’t such a thing as authorised racket coverings or rules around what you could stick on your blade, no doubt some players would actually do that!

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

BTW: one thing I will say in favor of what JZ is talking about: IF ALL THE RULES ARE FOLLOWED based on the way the ITTF HAS CHANGED THE RULES since at least the 1990s (JZ also refers to rules from 1983 these do have the same effect) it still, SEVERLY, puts defensive players in general and LP players in PARTICULAR at a disadvantage vs smooth rubber 2 winged loopers AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF PLAY.

Something to think about: in 2003 Joo Se Hyuk got the silver medal in the World Table Tennis Championship Men’s Singles.

Since JSH dropped from the top 10, has there been any other defensive player at anywhere near that level? Top 10? Top 20? Top 30?

If you watch top level TT from the 1990s and earlier, there were a lot of fairly high level defensive players and a huge diversity of table tennis styles that were very very successful.

At this point, I don’t see anyone who I legitimately think can win one of the big pro tournaments who plays any style other than the Two Winged Looping Aggressive Offensive style modeled after the way the top Chinese players are trained. Most of the top rankings of the sport is a vanilla version of that which I have heard Jan Ove Waldner refer to as robots.

Back when JOW was playing, most the top offensive players would also play various styles and frequently lob and play different versions of defense rather than only playing all out aggressive offense.

So, as a result of those rule changes I personally do feel something has been lost in the sport. I’m trying to make the sport more viewer friendly and grow the sport I feel it has become less viewer friendly and there is no question that there are fewer players, clubs or viewing fans today than there were in the 1990s.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

I’d be interested to know which of my posts you thought was immature. I try to make all my posts reasonable and rational, and consistent with each other. I admit, some of my responses are more “jokey” that others…such as the post where I asked James Z if he’d ever tried gluing one rubber on top of another…but even then it does serve to make a serious point; namely that if there wasn’t such a thing as authorised racket coverings or rules around what you could stick on your blade, no doubt some players would actually do that!

The simple fact that you post almost the same comments over and over and over as if writing it the first time might have been missed by the reader. The ideas were fine the first time, but the 70th time you say that either version of breaking the rules is not okay without understanding the history of how ITTF’s rule changes have really impacted the sport, seems to me to be all you should need.

Scan through any thread you are bantering with JZ and read only your responses and tell me if it does not sound redundant to the point of immaturity or insecurity.

If one person posts one good comment that makes sense, and then another person posts 10 comments after trying to contradict or debate, but they all sound the same, that is going to look silly to anyone else. If two people are going back and forth and the basic substance of what they are saying does not change, then they both sound like they want to get the last word and that is the definition of the two terms at the end of the previous paragraph.

 

[Stuart Marquis]

BTW: one thing I will say in favor of what JZ is talking about: IF ALL THE RULES ARE FOLLOWED based on the way the ITTF HAS CHANGED THE RULES since at least the 1990s (JZ also refers to rules from 1983 these do have the same effect) it still, SEVERLY, puts defensive players in general and LP players in PARTICULAR at a disadvantage vs smooth rubber 2 winged loopers AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF PLAY.

Something to think about: in 2003 Joo Se Hyuk got the silver medal in the World Table Tennis Championship Men’s Singles.

Since JSH dropped from the top 10, has there been any other defensive player at anywhere near that level? Top 10? Top 20? Top 30?

If you watch top level TT from the 1990s and earlier, there were a lot of fairly high level defensive players and a huge diversity of table tennis styles that were very very successful.

At this point, I don’t see anyone who I legitimately think can win one of the big pro tournaments who plays any style other than the Two Winged Looping Aggressive Offensive style modeled after the way the top Chinese players are trained. Most of the top rankings of the sport is a vanilla version of that which I have heard Jan Ove Waldner refer to as robots.

Back when JOW was playing, most the top offensive players would also play various styles and frequently lob and play different versions of defense rather than only playing all out aggressive offense.

So, as a result of those rule changes I personally do feel something has been lost in the sport. I’m trying to make the sport more viewer friendly and grow the sport I feel it has become less viewer friendly and there is no question that there are fewer players, clubs or viewing fans today than there were in the 1990s.

I don’t disagree with that. I’ve never stated that I support the rule changes or tried to claim that they haven’t disadvantaged defensive players. I’d be in favour of repealing some of these rules in order to bring more diversity of styles back into the game, and I’ve said that in one of my previous exchanges with James Z. But he just ignores that and portrays me as a fan of those rules simply because I stress the importance of playing to the rules whether you like them or not.

 

[Stuart Marquis]

The simple fact that you post almost the same comments over and over and over as if writing it the first time might have been missed by the reader. The ideas were fine the first time, but the 70th time you say that either version of breaking the rules is not okay without understanding the history of how ITTF’s rule changes have really impacted the sport, seems to me to be all you should need.

Scan through any thread you are bantering with JZ and read only your responses and tell me if it does not sound redundant to the point of immaturity or insecurity.

If one person posts one good comment that makes sense, and then another person posts 10 comments after trying to contradict or debate, but they all sound the same, that is going to look silly to anyone else. If two people are going back and forth and the basic substance of what they are saying does not change, then they both sound like they want to get the last word and that is the definition of the two terms at the end of the previous paragraph.

I take a different view. If there is a key point that you’re trying to make in a discussion , and this consistently gets side-stepped or ignored, then is it not correct to keep pressing the issue if you want that point addressed? A recent example was where James Z was stating that speed-glue and boosters were not just illegal under the rules of Table Tennis, but also illegal under common law. Myself and others wanted to see evidence that they were illegal under common law, but James Z just kept avoiding the request for evidence. Eventually we got to the point where James Z basically backed down on this and acknowledged he had no evidence for this claim…but imagine if we’d not pressed him on the issue and we therefore never got to the point where he admitted he had no evidence…there would then be forum members out there that “walked away” from the debate thinking it was an established fact that speed-glue and boosters were illegal under common law, when the reality is that there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that this is the case.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

But, even if you disagree with him, you can understand how, someone could feel that those rules, being unfair, and disadvantaging so many styles of play that are being lost, could like the idea of setting up a separate league with different rules.

I mean, isn’t that what the HardBat people of done with their Ping Pong World Championship tournaments done. All of the rackets (maybe almost all) in those HardBat tournaments would be against the rules in any ITTF tournament.

JZ is sort of talking about setting up league of his own and I also can understand someone feeling that those rule changes have been such a disaster that, in some ways ITTF has lost much of its legitimacy. Isn’t that part of what JZ is actually trying to express.

And again, I think he has some good points mixed in with all the immature behavior.

 

[Stuart Marquis]

But, even if you disagree with him, you can understand how, someone could feel that those rules, being unfair, and disadvantaging so many styles of play that are being lost, could like the idea of setting up a separate league with different rules.

I mean, isn’t that what the HardBat people of done with their Ping Pong World Championship tournaments done. All of the rackets (maybe almost all) in those HardBat tournaments would be against the rules in any ITTF tournament.

JZ is sort of talking about setting up league of his own and I also can understand someone feeling that those rule changes have been such a disaster that, in some ways ITTF has lost much of its legitimacy. Isn’t that part of what JZ is actually trying to express.

And again, I think he has some good points mixed in with all the immature behavior.

I’d 100% support the idea of setting up a separate league with separate rules. If that’s all that James Z was promoting I’d be all for it…but he seems to me to be just as focused on undermining the existing regime as he is on creating an alternative.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Two things:

1) You can think that restating your point over and over and pointing out that it has not been answered over and over is valid, but, when I see that, it tells me something different. When I see the point the first time that is fine, I can remember it. But then, after the 15th, I start wondering, ”huh, what does that say?” and feeling it is bad form and feeling it is not too different from what JZ is doing.

2) If the rules are so skewed that only one style of play can really excel, if you played one of those styles that were harmed by those rules, you might question ITTF’s legitimacy and you might feel the rules about your equipment are not so valid, especially if the rules about equipment that would limit the impact of the one style that can excel are universally ignored.

The fact that JZ was quite a decent level player when ITTF banned the equipment he had been using for years, may also have an impact on how he feels. But even without that context, I think the ITTF has messed up on rule changes to such an extent that it might be worth it for more people to question the legitimacy of the organization and the rules they have changed.

 

[Stuart Marquis]

Two things:

1) You can think that restating your point over and over and pointing out that it has not been answered over and over is valid, but, when I see that, it tells me something different. When I see the point the first time that is fine, I can remember it. But then, after the 15th, I start wondering, ”huh, what does that say?” and feeling it is bad form and feeling it is not too different from what JZ is doing.

2) If the rules are so skewed that only one style of play can really excel, if you played one of those styles that were harmed by those rules, you might question ITTF’s legitimacy and you might feel the rules about your equipment are not so valid, especially if the rules about equipment that would limit the impact of the one style that can excel are universally ignored.

The fact that JZ was quite a decent level player when ITTF banned the equipment he had been using for years, may also have an impact on how he feels. But even without that context, I think the ITTF has messed up on rule changes to such an extent that it might be worth it for more people to question the legitimacy of the organization and the rules they have changed.

On point 1, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Persistence did pay off eventually in the example I gave, so it did move the debate forwards, albeit in a rather painful way.

On point 2, I completely understand that sentiment, although I would argue that the rules are “valid” simply by definition of the fact that they’ve been introduced by the body responsible for making the rules. Whether the rules are good or useful is another question! And like I say, I’ve never expressed support for any of these rules that have disadvantaged defenders. I do also think that the speed-glue booster issue has be exaggerated to legitimate a willingness to ignore rules on racket coverings. In my experience speed-glue is now virtually non-existent in the sport, and whilst boosting does occur, I’m not sure if it could really be described as normal practice amongst loopers…but maybe it could be if we focus specifically on Chinese rubber loopers…of which I don’t really see that many over here in the UK , where the vast majority of loopers are using European style rubbers and Tenergy/Dignics etc

 

[James Z]

He has reason, I used for recreative use treated long pips (enlarged & surface smoothed) and the difference is very very big.

A quick note
Just to be VERY clear, Magic 77 is not treated pips.
I am against use of any treated pips
I will post more on treated pips & surface smoothing etc later

 

[James Z]

On point 1, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Persistence did pay off eventually in the example I gave, so it did move the debate forwards, albeit in a rather painful way.

On point 2, I completely understand that sentiment, although I would argue that the rules are “valid” simply by definition of the fact that they’ve been introduced by the body responsible for making the rules. Whether the rules are good or useful is another question! And like I say, I’ve never expressed support for any of these rules that have disadvantaged defenders. I do also think that the speed-glue booster issue has be exaggerated to legitimate a willingness to ignore rules on racket coverings. In my experience speed-glue is now virtually non-existent in the sport, and whilst boosting does occur, I’m not sure if it could really be described as normal practice amongst loopers…but maybe it could be if we focus specifically on Chinese rubber loopers…of which I don’t really see that many over here in the UK , where the vast majority of loopers are using European style rubbers and Tenergy/Dignics etc

Your ridiculous persistence that
1. Speed gluing & boosting cannot also be illegal under common law if it violates local, state, national & international health code violations
2. Chemical inspection & visual inspection must have equal priority though use of hazardoud chemicals is a serious health hazard

pald off ? REALLY ?

though I at least got you (& Lodro etc) to admit that

1. ITTF banned speed gluing & boosting PRIMARILY because of health reasons
2. There is no equal chemical inspection and visual inspection (in fact there is zero chemical inspection at lower levels as if the health of low level players is not as important as professional players)

3. ITTF now wants everyone to forget the original reasons as to why they banned speed-gluing in 1995 & boosting in 2008 but ITTF now wants everyone to think that this is now just a performance issue & not at all health issue.

 

[lodro]

Your ridiculous persistence that
1. Speed gluing & boosting cannot also be illegal under common law if it violates local, state, national & international health code violations
2. Chemical inspection & visual inspection must have equal priority though use of hazardoud chemicals is a serious health hazard

pald off ? REALLY ?

though I at least got you (& Lodro etc) to admit that

1. ITTF banned speed gluing & boosting PRIMARILY because of health reasons
2. There is no equal chemical inspection and visual inspection (in fact there is zero chemical inspection at lower levels as if the health of low level players is not as important as professional players)

3. ITTF now wants everyone to forget the original reasons as to why they banned speed-gluing in 1995 & boosting in 2008 but ITTF now wants everyone to think that this is now just a performance issue & not at all health issue.

Does not matter if it is the authorities of a country or ITTF or whoever makes a rule that is allegedly for our best health, in the end
it is up to the individuals to do as they decide. Take smoking, which allegedly is bad for us but millions still do it it.Even when it would be completely banned , some would still do it. Alcohol was completely banned sometimes and people still did it.

So, drastic rules or laws will never work. A rule that states "You must use the rubbers the way you take them out of the factory packages" is
simply a provocation to which some of us reply by thinking NOW WAIT A MINUTE .............🤣

 

[Stuart Marquis]

Your ridiculous persistence that
1. Speed gluing & boosting cannot also be illegal under common law if it violates local, state, national & international health code violations
2. Chemical inspection & visual inspection must have equal priority though use of hazardoud chemicals is a serious health hazard

pald off ? REALLY ?

though I at least got you (& Lodro etc) to admit that

1. ITTF banned speed gluing & boosting PRIMARILY because of health reasons
2. There is no equal chemical inspection and visual inspection (in fact there is zero chemical inspection at lower levels as if the health of low level players is not as important as professional players)

3. ITTF now wants everyone to forget the original reasons as to why they banned speed-gluing in 1995 & boosting in 2008 but ITTF now wants everyone to think that this is now just a performance issue & not at all health issue.

1. I NEVER said that speed-glue and booster cannot also be illegal under common law. In principle they could be. What I did ask for was your evidence that they are illegal under common law. Asking you for evidence to support your claim is not the same thing as actively rejecting your claim. Like I said, I’d happily accept the claim if you can support it with evidence….if you can’t then I’m skeptical.

2. I’ve never tried to say that speed-glue and booster were banned for anything other than health concerns. That they were banned for health concerns is no big secret, so it really isn’t any achievement that you got me to confirm this in our discussion.

3. I’ve never suggested that ITTF testing measures are effective or good enough. So once again, getting me to acknowledge that ITTF should be doing more with regards to both chemical and visual inspections is not any sort of achievement.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

1. I NEVER said that speed-glue and booster cannot also be illegal under common law. In principle they could be. What I did ask for was your evidence that they are illegal under common law. Asking you for evidence to support your claim is not the same thing as actively rejecting your claim. Like I said, I’d happily accept the claim if you can support it with evidence….if you can’t then I’m skeptical.

2. I’ve never tried to say that speed-glue and booster were banned for anything other than health concerns. That they were banned for health concerns is no big secret, so it really isn’t any achievement that you got me to confirm this in our discussion.

3. I’ve never suggested that ITTF testing measures are effective or good enough. So once again, getting me to acknowledge that ITTF should be doing more with regards to both chemical and visual inspections is not any sort of achievement.

Stuart, please just read your post and tell me, does this sound like the post of someone who is being the mature voice on one side of a debate.

Of course JZ sounds ridiculous as well. But ridiculous vs ridiculous is just ridiculous going around in circles. Or, at least, that is how it all seems to me.

Someone once told me, "Never wrestle with a pig because you'll both get dirty and pigs like that." Now, perhaps you are having fun and that is fine. But to me it looks like JZ is having fun and somehow, you are not.

In the end, it is fine either way. But....does that comment really sound like the mature higher ground that you were trying to present yourself as presenting? Really? You may as well wind him up the way he is winding you up, or figure some way of having fun with the discussion. But the comment above, I am sorry, but......what was the purpose? What could that post achieve?

 

[Stuart Marquis]

Stuart, please just read your post and tell me, does this sound like the post of someone who is being the mature voice on one side of a debate.

Of course JZ sounds ridiculous as well. But ridiculous vs ridiculous is just ridiculous going around in circles. Or, at least, that is how it all seems to me.

Someone once told me, "Never wrestle with a pig because you'll both get dirty and pigs like that." Now, perhaps you are having fun and that is fine. But to me it looks like JZ is having fun and somehow, you are not.

In the end, it is fine either way. But....does that comment really sound like the mature higher ground that you were trying to present yourself as presenting? Really? You may as well wind him up the way he is winding you up, or figure some way of having fun with the discussion. But the comment above, I am sorry, but......what was the purpose? What could that post achieve?

I think it does sound like I’m being mature…because my post is pointing out how James Z is misrepresenting my position. And if I’m being misrepresented, then surely it is reasonable of me to want to point that out….and pointing that out is the achievement and purpose of the post.

There’s a persistent pattern throughout all my exchanges with James Z…which is that I make a statement and then James Z creates a straw-man of it and then attacks that straw-man. It’s unfortunate that my position hasn’t been engaged with honestly, but such is life!

I don’t like being misrepresented, so in that sense I’m not having fun…but at the same time I do enjoy out-manoeuvring James Z to the point where he needs to misrepresent my position in order to have anything to say. I guess sometimes you’ve got to wrestle the pig and get a bit dirty just to verify that you are in fact dealing with a pig!

 

[lodro]

I think it does sound like I’m being mature…because my post is pointing out how James Z is misrepresenting my position. And if I’m being misrepresented, then surely it is reasonable of me to want to point that out….and pointing that out is the achievement and purpose of the post.

There’s a persistent pattern throughout all my exchanges with James Z…which is that I make a statement and then James Z creates a straw-man of it and then attacks that straw-man. It’s unfortunate that my position hasn’t been engaged with honestly, but such is life!

I don’t like being misrepresented, so in that sense I’m not having fun…but at the same time I do enjoy out-manoeuvring James Z to the point where he needs to misrepresent my position in order to have anything to say. I guess sometimes you’ve got to wrestle the pig and get a bit dirty just to verify that you are in fact dealing with a pig!

.............and when you're done with him , I put my hand up for some pork-chops or even a ham 😂