[adham]

Zitat von Footsteps

So you tell me you (the ITTF) did not even consider that. Adham, i'm sorry. what are "you" (the ITTF) gonna do now? Change the rules AGAIN? Don't forget frictionless short pips then this time. Oh and duck. People will tear you appart, methaphorically speaking.

Think first, then act.
If you want to enforce a minimum friction Level, why dont you go ahead and check ALL the racket coverings on the market for that criteria? What kind of company are you running over there? How can such a slipup even happen? It's simply embarrassing.

Take it easy my friend. One step at a time. I am having a lot of problems actually understanding exactly your points, but I wil try my best to respond:

Zitat von Footsteps

Adham you did not even answer the question.

Why minimum friction? What is the official reasoning? I don't ask for your oppinion. To my understanding someone suggested a minimum friction for racket coverings and it was agreed upon. Why? Because it's more sexy?

Why 4mm thickness? Does not sound sexy to me, 6mm sounds more sexy.
The reason briefly that a minimum friction level was introduced is in order to avoid post-treated pimpled rubbers (coated pimples). At first this was done by the players directly, then it spread to the distributers, therefore, the Board of Directors of the ITTF asked the Equipment Committee to study the matter and make a recommendation. It was finally decided to establish a minimum friction level in order to set a limit on how far low friction should go, and also to set a standard so that the manufacturers can follow. Why 25mN and not another number? because the experts felt that this is a reasonable level. Just like at one time the experts also felt that 4mm was a reasonable thickness.

Zitat von Footsteps

From my perspective its not a matter on what is done. It's how it is done.
And the execution on your part (the ITTF) could not be poorer. An oppinion that i do not have exclusively this time but one that i share with my good old imaginary friend and personal idol Timo Boll, who's voice should carry some weight and even rock your chair if necessary.

Granted, the decision and application of the decision are too separate things. The decision was made, but I agree with you that the application may not have been done in the best possible way. We are learning from this experience and I am sure that we will do better next time. In the meantime, we would like to see the effects of the application of the rule. Regarding Timo Ball, I assume you are referring to boosters and tuners and their illegality and the racket control. I have the highest respect for Timo Ball, even though I doubt he knows about Nano technology either; but your idol made some very sensible comments, but also some naiive comments. He is right, the ITTF must be strict and not allow any illegal racket. Absolutely right. He even experienced first hand the ITTF being very strict and disqualifying Crisan. Even if Crisan was not doing anything on purpose, he actually did play with an illegal racket. The ITTF is trying to improve its methods, step by step. The naiive comment is that many players, including Timo, say that the ITTF can not make any rule without first establishing how to control the rule. Imagine if the IOC must wait until it knows how to police every drug that is possibly performance enhancing?? There would be no doping control. Experienced people know that you set a rule because of a principle. Then you will always have to improve your detection methods. This is in all walks of life the same. The IOC discovers a doping infraction sometimes more than 2 years after the fact. Are they also incompetent then?

Zitat von Footsteps

Also Adham, im sorry and this is not an offence but i slowly grow doubts about your competence. ...
Acrylate is already used in Blades. It can be incorporated into so called rubbers to. Nanogate technology would allow to produce Rubbers that are as plain as a mirror or ice or whatever you think has a perfectly even surface. So a minimum friction rule is a splendit idea. It has nothing to do with pimples though...

My competence: You can think as you wish. I am definitely not an expert in every single field of the ITTF and table tennis. I am trying my best to explain rationally and to answer questions. I am doing the best I can, but I can't be expected to know every detail about everything, especially Nano Technology.

Zitat von Footsteps

Antispin or an other name Antitop rubbers have been designed to have as little friction as possible. Long Pimples Out can never, will never and were never as even, polished and therefore frictionless as Antis. the reason is the behaviour of the ball on impact, causing the pimples to move and present several sharp edges and other uneven contact that causes friction.

Perhaps the wisdom of applying the minimum friction to pimples is as you described it. Perhaps there was never the intent to remove the Anti rubbers. Each person in the ITTF eventually makes their decision based on their own thinking, and I cannot know exactly what each person was thinking. It seems to me that the main concern was the treatment of long pimpled rubbers. This is what I recall as the main argument.

Zitat von Footsteps

To even debate that is really, really shocking to me. It shows a profound lack of understanding what the problem is.

Nothing should shock you. We are free to debate what we want. And you are free to ignore our ignorant debates if you don't like them. But let us breathe man, let us discuss and debate, even if shocking to you. I am here not only to answer questions, but also to ask some questions to get a better understanding. If this shocks you, I'm sorry. It does not seem to shock others, and surely I am not shocked. I like debates. Why not? Take it easy.

I'm very glad that many players adapted to new equipment. This is what I have been recommending all along (read all the posts if you have the patience, but beware the dreadful debates). I am very happy. I don't understand your question, what should the ITTF do now? What do you mean? We are very happy that the players found new equipment and are still playing. This is great.

Zitat von Footsteps

Think first, then act.
If you want to enforce a minimum friction Level, why dont you go ahead and check ALL the racket coverings on the market for that criteria? What kind of company are you running over there? How can such a slipup even happen? It's simply embarrassing.

I am not sure what is embarrassing? and what slip up? and I am not sure if you are sarcastic or if you are asking if we checked every racket. I am sorry, I just don't exactly understand some parts of your comments.


As I said, if you produce a racket covering as you describe it that meets the ITTF rules, then fine. But from my limited knowledge as an Engineer, I would think that such a smooth surface would be very difficult to use for its intended purpose. But if someone were to use it and if it met the ITTF regulations, then why not.

Thanks for your input, and relax a bit, we all want what's best for our sport.