Why do people say LP's should be banned?

[NextLevel]

Mmmm, I was in Birmingham in 1977, Bern in 80 (with J. Hilton...🥲), Paris in 88 and the World Cup in Rotterdam in 2011. In between, I saw many international matches of the national team, European meetings with Villette Charleroi, demonstrations, etc...etc...so I have seen and met quite a lot.
Don't get too personal.

Oh, I know what I mean when I say you don't know enough players. You do too. Do you think Danny Seemiller used anti because of technical limits? And if someone tried to play like Danny Seemiller or Eric Boggan and used anti, was it because of technical limits? You can replace this with He Zhiwen or any top player using pimples you choose.

 

[Metaxa]

Oh, I know what I mean when I say you don't know enough players. You do too. Do you think Danny Seemiller used anti because of technical limits? And if someone tried to play like Danny Seemiller or Eric Boggan and used anti, was it because of technical limits? You can replace this with He Zhiwen or any top player using pimples you choose.

Yeah Danny, I know him but not personally of course. Wonderful player but is certainly not a classically trained table tennis player and most probably learned to play ping-pong in his garage and perfected himself with anti or anything other rubber. I am pretty sure Danny used anti because of technical limitation (BH) of his ability.
Was also in another era. Let's say in an "in between era" between the old school players with SP and the now classic (inverted rubbers) from the current generation. Most probably Danny also played against the Belgian, Norbert Van de Walle (well known in America), a classic defender pur sang.

 

[NextLevel]

Yeah Danny, I know him but not personally of course. Wonderful player but is certainly not a classically trained table tennis player and most probably learned to play ping-pong in his garage and perfected himself with anti or anything other rubber. I am pretty sure Danny used anti because of technical limitation of his ability.
Was also in another era. Let's say in an "in between era" between the old school players with SP and the now classic (inverted rubbers) from the current generation. Most probably Danny also played against the Belgian, Norbert Van de Walle (well known in America), a classic defender pur sang.

I know the man and I'm pretty sure he didn't, he pretty much wanted to play with his personal grip rather than traditional shakehand, he mostly plays with the inverted side for both forehand and backhand and uses the anti as a change up to hold the table when he is on trouble and doesn't want to back up.

Different eras for sure but since you are citing knowing players up to 1976, you should be open to discussing such players no?

According to you, players who want to play different from topspin and use materials yhay make their play better only do so because they can't play inverted topspin.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Time flies, and the talk on lp still on...

Come back in 2034
It will still be on
Just like 2014 and 2004

 

[NextLevel]

Another issue is who coaches you especially in situations where you can't pick your coach. In India for example, many players learn pips because their coaches use pips. That is a technical limit right?

Come back in 2034
It will still be on
Just like 2014 and 2004

If you watch the match between Waldner and the Korean defender Li Gun Sang, the commentators were already talking back then about how choppers were going away because of the increased speed of the game. So these issues are everlasting. But the problem is when someone starts claiming that someone going with a style with a lower ceiling is only a result of their inability to play the style with the higher ceiling. If you know the development of the player and this is the case, sure. But if you don't know the development of the player, good luck being kind to the exceptions.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

No, I think there are good reasons to ignore an unenfoeceble rule, especially one badly written, in an age where we see the serve rule is terribly enforced and the rule was made largely to keep TT manufacturers profitable and little elae.

I hear what you're saying...but the fact remains that if you are breaking/ignoring the rules then you are breaking/ignoring the rules, irrespective of your reasoning as to why you're breaking/ignoring the rules.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

You can argue all you want, but almost all professionals are boosting in one way or another. It is hard to play table tennis at the top levels without well boosted rubbers either by the manufacturer or in may cases yourself. All the ITTF can measure is racket thickness. They should have made rules that were enforceable and their motives for not doing so are not entirely pure.

I've never said that professionals weren't also breaking the rules. Contravening rule 2.4.7 runs through the sport at all levels. The rule should definitely be looked at and refined in order to make it more enforceable...but as things stand at the moment if you're breaking the rule then you're breaking the rule.

 

[Metaxa]

I know the man and I'm pretty sure he didn't, he pretty much wanted to play with his personal grip rather than traditional shakehand, he mostly plays with the inverted side for both forehand and backhand and uses the anti as a change up to hold the table when he is on trouble and doesn't want to back up.

Different eras for sure but since you are citing knowing players up to 1976, you should be open to discussing such players no?

According to you, players who want to play different from topspin and use materials yhay make their play better only do so because they can't play inverted topspin.

Not just topspin but usually just about all the BH balls they should learn, like pushing, blocks, flipping (chiquita), etc...they can't do these or rather, not well enough and they (whether supported by a coach or not, which you yourself agree to above) reach for technical equipment.
And then we already come back to answering the topic starter. Should that material not exist (or be banned), they would practice, until hopefully for the player in training, a good result comes. If that is not the case, we can say that the player-to-be, doesn't have enough skills to perform at level but maybe he doesn't want to (which I never believe because a player always wants to get better of course) and is still satisfied with what he can, without reaching for other material. And that is what I would appreciate most about a player.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

And if you use rubber cleaner, which can increase or reduce the tackiness or oil content of the rubber, you are not?

Whether or not using rubber cleaner contravenes 2.4.7 has no bearing on whether using booster does. You can't justify rule breaking by pointing to other instances of (potential) rule-breaking; two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Another issue is who coaches you especially in situations where you can't pick your coach. In India for example, many players learn pips because their coaches use pips. That is a technical limit right?

there are many theories and I have seen successful cases going against theories

It is said that choppers need to be tall, or have long reach.
have a calm personality.
but i have met short and bubbly choppers too that has done very well and served as TPE's main chopping practice partner.

Then you have the Deng Yaping/Mima Ito style of players that needs to be aggressive, but then there is an introvert version too.

Coaches will have a say on the players development. It is a gamble, since thousands of kids go through that, and only a handful can succeed. The success rate is lower than 1% (whether inverted or pimple out)

So there are theories on, how to select certain style of players - including changing right handers to lefties.
Does it work all the time? not always.
Is there always a similar pattern on change towards such styles? also not always.

If you watch the match between Waldner and the Korean defender Li Gun Sang, the commentators were already talking back then about how choppers were going away because of the increased speed of the game. So these issues are everlasting.

Yep, and to me, defense chopping is an art and I sure wish the art stays on - more than I wish penhold to stay on.

But the problem is when someone starts claiming that someone going with a style with a lower ceiling is only a result of their inability to play the style with the higher ceiling. If you know the development of the player and this is the case, sure. But if you don't know the development of the player, good luck being kind to the exceptions.

inability is naive talk
I have seen pip players using the other side to do drills and they are very capable to play inverted at a high level too.
I agree, one needs to know the player and I know many pips that train 30 to 40 hours a week, close to 50 weeks a year. They do the same physicals as inverted, run the same mountain, etc

it is naive talk to take amateur unmoving pip player and using that as a motive that pips lack this or that, so it should be banned.
If the level is higher in that community, that pip player will get in trouble for not moving.
any person who can top spin, can kill that spin easily. The balls will come back, but eventually the ball will come back off/long. maybe fail 2 to 3 times with your top spin, but you will get the 7 to 8 times back in.

So problem is, can you top spin.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Whether or not using rubber cleaner contravenes 2.4.7 has no bearing on whether using booster does. You can't justify rule breaking by pointing to other instances of (potential) rule-breaking; two wrongs don't make a right.

so ITTF is okay with breaking one of the rules?

 

[ViperTableTennis]

So, you again imply that once the factory boosting wears off from my Rasanter 53 I must boost it, otherwise it's something different from what was presented to ITTF. Well, if you say so 🤷🏻‍♂️

I'm not implying that at all. What you're suggesting here would be a breach of rule 2.4.7. What you must do when the original booster wears-off is either continue to play with the rubber as it is, or alternatively buy a new one. If you apply booster yourself in an attempt to restore the rubber then you will fall foul of rule 2.4.7 because you will be applying a chemical treatment to the rubber. There is no problem with continuing to play with a rubber when the manufacturers booster has worn-off because the wearing-off of a booster is clearly not you applying any sort of treatment to the racket covering.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

so ITTF is okay with breaking one of the rules?

No, I don't think so...because I don't think that rubber cleaner would be found to contravene rule 2.4.7....but I absolutely do think that post-manufacture boosting of racket coverings by players contravenes 2.4.7.

 

[NextLevel]

I've never said that professionals weren't also breaking the rules. Contravening rule 2.4.7 runs through the sport at all levels. The rule should definitely be looked at and refined in order to make it more enforceable...but as things stand at the moment if you're breaking the rule then you're breaking the rule.

Yes but if you argue over this, don't be surprised if people don't take you seriously. The rule is hard to justify once VOCs are taken out of the equation and rubber thickness limits are not exceeded.

 

[NextLevel]

I'm not implying that at all. What you're suggesting here would be a breach of rule 2.4.7. What you must do when the original booster wears-off is either continue to play with the rubber as it is, or alternatively buy a new one. If you apply booster yourself in an attempt to restore the rubber then you will fall foul of rule 2.4.7 because you will be applying a chemical treatment to the rubber. There is no problem with continuing to play with a rubber when the manufacturers booster has worn-off because the wearing-off of a booster is clearly not you applying any sort of treatment to the racket covering.

This interpretation - where did you get it from?

 

[NextLevel]

No, I don't think so...because I don't think that rubber cleaner would be found to contravene rule 2.4.7....but I absolutely do think that post-manufacture boosting of racket coverings by players contravenes 2.4.7.

As written it clearly does.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

Yes but if you argue over this, don't be surprised if people don't take you seriously. The rule is hard to justify once VOCs are taken out of the equation and rubber thickness limits are not exceeded.

I agree that the justification for the rule might be dubious, but that's a separate issue. The fact remains that the rule exists, and there is no way that anyone can reasonably argue that 2.4.7 doesn't prohibit the use of boosters by players.

 

[NextLevel]

I agree that the justification for the rule might be dubious, but that's a separate issue. The fact remains that the rule exists, and there is no way that anyone can reasonably argue that 2.4.7 doesn't prohibit the use of boosters by players.

It prohibits it by players and is silent on its use by manufacturers. And this is because?

If the rule prohibiting this can be seen as a rejection of cleaning your own rubbers, it needs to be rewritten quite frankly.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

This interpretation - where did you get it from?

Booster is a chemical. Rule 2.4.7 prohibits a player from applying a chemical treatment to a racket covering. There's nothing here to interpret; it's a clear and straight-forward instruction.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

As written it clearly does.

But you're missing the point; whether rubber cleaner is prohibited by 2.4.7 has no bearing on whether boosting by players is prohibited by 2.4.7. Rule 2.4.7 is poorly written, but one thing that isn't in doubt from the wording is that post manufacture boosting by players is prohibited.