Why can't we have interchangeable sponge and rubbers top sheets?

[Gtsnake]

Currently you have to buy the rubber and sponge as a one piece unit. Why can't the sponge and rubber top sheet be purchased separately and combined by the player?

You can then choose a Hurricane top sheet with a dignics sponge and have very specific characteristics that is very customized. I'm sure there would be a way to bond the top sheet to the sponge just like how you glue the rubber sponge to the blade.

 

[Lazer]

The process of gluing with pimples down is a critical process. I for one would not like to do this...

Cheers
L-zr

 

[hclnnkhg]

In China, they used to be sold separately. Ma Lin and Kong Linghui used Globe 999 with Yunhai sponge. Yunhai was bought by DHS and they developed Hurricane 3 with the sponge, and H3 was sold as a complete topsheet+sponge rubber. This became very popular in China and that became the standard. Not sure about Japanese or European rubbers.

 

[igorponger]

YOU MUST NOT BREAK READY-MADE SANDWICH RUBBERS, it is illegal.

We have now got specific Rule that requires for sandwich rubber to be a permanent combination of sponge and topsheet. It was enacted by ITTF back in 2015.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Currently you have to buy the rubber and sponge as a one piece unit. Why can't the sponge and rubber top sheet be purchased separately and combined by the player?

You can then choose a Hurricane top sheet with a dignics sponge and have very specific characteristics that is very customized. I'm sure there would be a way to bond the top sheet to the sponge just like how you glue the rubber sponge to the blade.

The answer is, it is a mission.
Chinese rubbers 2 decades ago allow you to buy sponges and top sheet separately. Both for inverted and pip outs.

For someone like Cole (in the USA), he might still be able to sell you custom combinations.

I for example, have no interest in gluing top sheets to sponges.
I found an old sponge with 729 top sheet, from maybe 2 decades back. Glued it, and the topsheet came off after a few hits. Just chuck it away, since a new 729 cost less than my times worth

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Yet all you talk about 9% of the time seems to be how pips treat cheats are ruining teh sport, while you know damn well that

1) when did I say (talk) that?
2) who are the 9%?
3) how are these 9% ruining the sport?
4) what damn well do I know of, what, who, when, what, how?

 

[OldUser]

I'm not sure what rule igorponger is referring to, but I think rule 3.4.2.2 would prevent the separation and re-combination of rubber top sheets and sponges:

The racket covering shall be used as it has been authorised by the ITTF without any physical, chemical or other treatment, changing or modifying playing properties, friction, outlook, colour, structure, surface, etc.; in particular, no additives shall be used.

The racket covering that is authorised by the ITTF is the rubber topsheet combined with the sponge when it comes to pimples-in rubbers...so any act of separating the topsheet from the sponge and then re-attaching the topsheet to a different sponge would mean that the covering wouldn't then be one that has been authorised by the ITTF.

THIS is actually the right answer, because you have to understand 2 concepts underlying here:
1- yes, a sandwich rubber is actually a sponge + pimpled rubber
2- BUT the ITTF Equipment Commitee has made sure they would not allow anymore separated sponge and rubber in their LARC: there's only a "PIMPLE TYPE" box, not any "SPONGE" box for example, and you have to choose between Anti, In, Long, Out. Therefore, no sponge is allowed in the LARC as a single item, plain simple. No sponge has any ITTF equipment number.

So consequently, if someone shows a rackets to the officials with a doubtfull sandwich rubber, it shall not pass the inspection. They actually got all the sponge colors, texture, and aspects related to each rubber attached on it.

 

[OldUser]

Also, you cannot submit any sponge sample as a single item to the commitee:
"SAMPLES
The brand should submit the following to the address given under 1.3 CONTACT.
➢ 1 pcs top sheet sample of each colour black and one additional color (without
sponge).
➢ Complete racket covering sample of:
- each color (except black color) with each available sponge, with the thickest
available sponge
- black color with one sponge color only, with the thickest available sponge
For pimples-out/long
➢ 1 pcs additional top sheet sample (without sponge) in any color"

in https://equipment.ittf.com/#/equipment/technical_leaflets then go to M4: Racket Coverings download, it's at page 20

 

[OldUser]

Damn... english is not my native language and I understand it better than those americans wannabees like James Z... make a favor to your compatriots man and stop talking about rules you don't want to understand or worse... you want to distort to make them fill in your agenda, I REALLY HATE THAT DISHONESTY ONCE AND FOR ALL !

 

[lodro]

This is what I have been trying to explain 50 different ways few days ago to posters like Lodro, Tony's Table Tennis, DukeGaga , TTStar & few others but they do not want to accept it.

Gosh you really are a wanker.
I read and understood the rules .
I was asking for an explanation why I was able to purchase (for example) a

Loki rubber Rxton 5 black with orange sponge
A N D both with the ITTF number 158-007
Loki rubber Rxton 5 black with black sponge

and which one was the legal one ???

 

[SlowPower]

So tell me why different H3 always have the same ittf numbers? Even the neos have the same.
For my understanding only the top sheet has to be approved but the sponge is interchangable as long as the sandwich including glue is below 4mm...

 

[lodro]

You follow all the rules ? REALLY ? How about Rule 2.4.7

Did your mother never warned you ?
You should NOT DO IT because it makes you blind !!!!!!

You can either not see properly anymore or can not read.
Here it is again:
lodro said:


Gosh you really are a wanker.
I read and understood the rules .
I was asking for an explanation why I was able to purchase (for example) a

Loki rubber Rxton 5 black with orange sponge
A N D both with the ITTF number 158-007
Loki rubber Rxton 5 black with black sponge

and which one was the legal one ???

IT SAYS : " I READ AND UNDERSTOOD "
IT DOES NOT SAY " I FOLLOW "

 

[lodro]

No You just added the last line
IT DOES NOT SAY " I FOLLOW "
It was not there in your earlier post

When someone says

it generally means you agree to them and abide by them
But if you want to troll by all means feel free

Anyway thanks for admitting you will not honor Rule 2.4.7

I added:
IT SAYS : " I READ AND UNDERSTOOD "
IT DOES NOT SAY " I FOLLOW "

 

[lodro]

ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW

 

[lodro]

I would like to be friends with everyone if possible.
What I don't undersatnd is why you get into arguments on on issues taht are not relevant to you or to teh thread.
I see that you are extremely upset with me for being critical of player who boost & your hated towrds me is due to this misplced anger. It is not just you but there are a whole bunch of posters here who hate me because my agenda indeed is to wake up the pips / anti players and start a huge race war against booster supremaicts

But take a good look at your own self. You mentioned that you are not upto 1400 level in another thread.
But given your age, are you a two winged looper ?
Did you learn to loop from your youth to stick with looping at this age
(I always remind everyone of Jonyer who sort of pioneered the backhand loop, swicthed to anti on hs backhand towards the end of his carreer. But went back to smooth but looked awful when I saw him play a few years ago)
Why do need to boost ?
Do you even loop ?
If you do not loop like mad from both wings, smooth spinny rubber is a huge liability in todays tabletennis.
Because everyone knows how to paly against smootrh rubber.
Or is it because you have some moral objection to social rubbers (anti or short pips or long pips) or anti-social rubbers (high aspect ratio super long pips) ?

ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW

 

[lodro]

1. The section I quoted doesn’t refer to top sheet or sponge as separate things, so there is no basis to assume only the top sheet is authorised . Instead the rule refers to the “racket covering” as being the thing which is authorised. In the case of pimples-in rubber, the “racket covering” must logically consist of both the top sheet combined with the sponge, since you cannot have a pimples-in rubber without sponge as an authorised racket covering.

2 The section I quoted is a rule; it’s a rule listed under the section outlining the regulations for international competition. But if you want a rule from a different section of the rule book we can also look to rule 2.4.7 found in the “Laws of Table Tennis” section. This rule prevents physical treatment being applied to the racket covering. Disassembling the racket covering by detaching the top sheet from the sponge would clearly qualify as a physical treatment being applied to the covering .

But i am still fishing for an answer to my question if a manufacturer can produce
Rubbers with the same ITTF number but with different sponges.

 

[Der_Echte]

We need to get a user name with somewhere "Lord Larry" in the name to chime in and make this derangement ops situation complete.

 

[lodro]

I answered Yes many times & you just ignore it

https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256805023805550.html

🤣
🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW
ANSWER THE QUESTION or say I DO NOT KNOW

 

[lodro]

This is an interesting question. Take a look at the manufacturer Spinlord. They aren't exactly one of the "big names" in table tennis, but they are big enough that I think we can assume that they follow the rules (and have consulted with ITTF on the rules where necessary).

Spinlord produce a range of different racket covering types, and they have several in their range where it is the same top-sheet but attached to different sponges. For example, there's two versions of the Degu short pips, three versions of the Waran short pips, two versions of the Adler pips-in rubber, three versions of the Irbis pips-in rubber, and four versions of the pips-in Marder rubber! There's a couple more examples as well. Here's their website page:

Rubbers – Spinlord

spinlord-tt.de

However, if we go to the ITTF list of authorised racket coverings we can see that whilst Degu, Waran, Adler, Irbis, and Marder are listed, each with their own approval code, there are no additional listings for each of their differently sponged versions (there is no listing for Degu 2 or Waran 2 etc etc). On the face of it, this would seem to suggest that it is only the top-sheet that is subject to ITTF authorisation, and that once the topsheet has been approved, the manufacturer can attached to it whatever sponge they choose without further approval. However, if a manufacturer were to do that, it seems to me that that would then go against rule 3.4.2.2 which states that "The racket covering shall be used as it has been authorised by the ITTF...".

So, how can we reconcile the fact that different sponged versions of the same top sheet don't have their own approval codes on the ITTF list of authorised racket coverings with the fact that all racket coverings should be used as they have been authorised by the ITTF? My brain is telling me that the answer to that question must be that all of these different sponged versions have been authorised by the ITTF, but they have been authorised under the same approval code as their original (parent) version.

So, if my line of reasoning is correct, then the answer to your question is as follows:

Yes, manufacturers can (and do) produce racket coverings with the same ITTF number but with different sponges, but in order to comply with rule 3.4.2.2 I think we have to assume that each of those versions has been presented to the ITTF for authorisation.

Furthermore, the requirement of rule 3.4.2.2 would seem to prevent an individual player or anyone that wasn't the manufacturer from peeling apart racket coverings in order to make their own personalised mix-and-match versions of topsheets and sponges (unless, of course, it was somehow possible for an individual to get their own creation authorised by ITTF...which seems nonsensical since it would then need to have an approval code which was different to the approval code displayed on the rubber topsheet!)

Thanking you very kindly for taking the time to give me such a comprehensive insight.
I think it is fair to say that ITTF is not giving us clear directions and answers and leaves us guessing.
One aspect that is also not clear is the fact that manufacturers do not only take liberties with the sponges but also with the top sheets.
Take a commercial H3 for example, it features the same number as the commercial Neo.
While DHS is happy to admit that the sponge is different they don't talk about the top-sheet. But this IS made from a different composition too.

What is the ITTF number for anyway ???
Scrutineers are not really able to judge by the numbers what rubber we got on the blade.
The same applies to us players who would love to know what our opposition is going
to use against us..........fat chance.

 

[SlowPower]

H3 neo is just a factory tuned H3, so it has the same topsheet!