We need a new rating system for rubber

[TensorBackhand]

I find that rubber's speed cannot easily be categorized.

A rubber like MXP is very catapulty. It gets high speed ratings on revspin over 9 and would probably be called Off+. But it also doesnt scale up much for hard hitting forehands.

D09c is less catapulty and gets a lower speed rating. But when hitting hard, it produces more power and speed than MXP.

How can we make a rating system that takes this into account and properly rates rubbers? I see paddle palace also just give a uniform speed rating for all the rubbers.

 

[NDH]

D09c is less catapulty and gets a lower speed rating. But when hitting hard, it produces more power and speed than MXP.

Are you basing this comment on your own experience or from what you've heard?

Because whilst I haven't used MX-P extensively (and not for a few years) I would be incredibly surprised if I could get more speed out of Dignics 09c.

In fact, I'd say I absolutely could not get more speed from it.

Dignics 09c doesn't even get as much top speed as Tenergy05.

It excels at high spin on faster shots, but it is not an ULTRA fast rubber.

The "ratings" on rubbers appear to be loosely based on ideas, and predominately based on marketing (the more expensive/newer rubbers get better ratings...... shock!)

Unless you can do the same robotic tests on all rubbers/balls, you'll never get the answer you are looking for.

This is just one of those areas where you need to experiment yourself.

 

[zeio]

Unless we get robots that can do Parkour to pick up table tennis, the typical "shoot a ball at a stationary racket and measure the COR" is the best you can get, but that only tells you how much energy gets returned to the ball (like a coach blocking to you), which is far from how a racket is used in reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e1_QhJ1EhQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPVC4IyRTG8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4DML7FIWk

 

[ander999]

Also another problem is that some of the older rubbers were fast for their time and hence have a rating of 9/10 or greater. As faster rubbers came out, they also obtained similar ratings (on revspin for example). In other words, the speed ratings of rubbers are generally based during their time.

 

[igorponger]

Schob rebound index is all you need. Nothing else needed for estimating rubber catapultiveness. Greater katapulta indicates greater velocity upon impact rubber onto the ball. Tenergy Rebound Index is measured at 55%, and the mushy defensive sponge proved at 20% on average trial.

 

[Trevize84]

We also need to define "speed" because as far as I know speed is measured in meters/seconds but in TT we use the term improperly.

 

[TensorBackhand]

We also need to define "speed" because as far as I know speed is measured in meters/seconds but in TT we use the term improperly.

I think it should be defined as meters/second.

But should we measure the m/s before the bounce or after the bounce?

Do we measure the m/s at medium impact or high impact?

 

[Gtsnake]

I've thought about this since a long time ago. Being an engineer I've always wanted to quantify TT equipment performance but haven't been able to simplify it down. I'm sure it can be done but it will take a lot of effort.

The problem with rating system now is that it's all subjective. People rate it based on what they "think" it performs at. However a 9 in speed to me is not a 9 in speed to the next guy. So you need to use a set standard that is measurable universally and won't change over time. That's why there's meters/second, feet/sec etc. Also spin rating should be measured in rpm (revolutions/minute) that is very easy to do since they make launch monitors for golf that can easily measure how fast a ball is spinning.

Until some organization (WTT, ITTF) comes out with a standard of measuring equipment performance it will always be a crap shoot based on someones guess.

 

[Trevize84]

I think it should be defined as meters/second.

But should we measure the m/s before the bounce or after the bounce?

Do we measure the m/s at medium impact or high impact?

You need to fix the surfaces where the rubber is glued. Then you can plot the characteristics of outgoing speed at a certain distance depending on the incoming speed and angles of impact. It's quite a fair amount of plots. If you think about that another sheet of the same rubber might behave very differently so each sheet should come with its own booklet of plots

 

[Der_Echte]

Entirely too many things going on with different player's impacts...

So this is a mission impossible from the start.

Be satisfied with being deceived by the manufacturer's ratings and be blissful.

 

[JJ Ng]

All ratings are rubbish. You have to try the rubber yourself and hence the table tennis manufacturers make a lot of money out of EJ'ers.

You also have to account for top sheet hardness and thickness.

For example, G-1 is know to have a hard top sheet. It is not particularly catapulty. Some would argue it is faster than some softer Revolution rubber.

But for me even FX-S is quite catapulty and I would feel FX-S to be much faster than G-1.

It is all subjective, after having EJ'ing for five years now. I am comfortable with uncertainty.

There are three types of people:

First type: they are constrained by finances. And they want to find the perfect rubber and think about it forever before buying one. They will ask a ton of questions on the forum and finally pick one and try to use it for as long as they can.

Second type: people who EJ constantly (like me right now). I am not really constrained by finances. I realize all rubbers feel differently on different blades. I take suggestions on the forum seriously and systematically try new rubbers. But for any rubbers I have tried, I try to find them a new home. For example, Gambler has a blade that has carbon on the forehand side and wood on the backhand side. I put some harder sponge ESN rubber on that type of blade now such as Rasanter 47, G-1, MX-S, etc. For my regular blade (harder faster carbon), I put soft ESN on the backhand side such as Rakza 7 soft, Rakza X soft, Xiom Vega Europe. I try not to "waste" the rubber if I don't have to. And I have a ton of old beat-up Hurricanes to put on those blades FH side.

My problem now is how I am going to wear down all that rubber and blade combination! I think I need offload some blades at my club soon.

Third type: People who really money are not a constraint either and they just buy Butterfly products over and over again.

 

[brokenball]

I have been saying for years there should be a tangential and normal COR. Better yet is a tangential and normal COR as a function of impact speed.
The COR is a number from 0 to 1 so it can't be extended. Most modern rubbers have similar CORs.

 

[loerting]

There should be a rating system where ratings for single items are not possible. Rather users can submit comparisons between two rubbers / two blades etc., by saying which one is faster, more controlled, etc.. The system itself will then calculate ratings by those comparisons, similar to elo rating systems which are calculating the elo using mach results (i.e. which player is "better"). This makes much more sense, as the personal bias can be avoided. A speed of 9/10 have different meanings to different people, therefore let the system give them its value.


For your speed problem, e.g. we could split "speed" into "full impact speed" and "base speed".

 

[TensorBackhand]

There should be a rating system where ratings for single items are not possible. Rather users can submit comparisons between two rubbers / two blades etc., by saying which one is faster, more controlled, etc.. The system itself will then calculate ratings by those comparisons, similar to elo rating systems which are calculating the elo using mach results (i.e. which player is "better"). This makes much more sense, as the personal bias can be avoided. A speed of 9/10 have different meanings to different people, therefore let the system give them its value.

Actually this is a very good idea.

Reminds me of Mark Zuckerberg's original Facemash

 

[Trevize84]

There should be a rating system where ratings for single items are not possible. Rather users can submit comparisons between two rubbers / two blades etc., by saying which one is faster, more controlled, etc.. The system itself will then calculate ratings by those comparisons, similar to elo rating systems which are calculating the elo using mach results (i.e. which player is "better"). This makes much more sense, as the personal bias can be avoided. A speed of 9/10 have different meanings to different people, therefore let the system give them its value.


For your speed problem, e.g. we could split "speed" into "full impact speed" and "base speed".

This makes sense to me but because rubbers and blade affect each other you cannot compare single items, you must compare the entire racket as a whole against another entire racket. Perhaps this is same racket but you've just replaced one single rubber. So you do differential comparison of two very close rackets (in this example even the blade has same age, same bumps, same age and skills of the evaluator). However still it makes sense to me to always considered the racket as whole and then determine differentially the characteristics of the single item.

 

[TackyForehand]

I agree that there should be an objective rating system to compare all different rubbers. The closest example I have found is from a Japanese youtube channel called Atomic Edge:

For blades, I find the blade frequency a good indicator of speed. Higher the faster. This spreadsheet is excellent: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tnzuhP98Iwl3_ZYIKs770Z4GeEXB1cPaF6xXC3IMLfg/edit#gid=0
Nothing I could find to indicate the spin, dwell time, nor sweet spot though.

The main variable is the human factor. Each person is not the same and they play different, thus requiring different equipment. But still, I think having objective data is useful as a reference to find suitable equipment.