Hello from ITTF President

[adham]

@Benjy

Please as you read my answer keep in mind that the ITTF rules are for the international level, then it is up to each national association to decide if they will adopt them or not.

- I believe that the 25mN applies to all rubbers
- ITTF does not "control" any personal equipment such as rubbers and blades, instead we authorize those manufacturers that wish to use the ITTF logo on their rubbers only if the rubber meets the ITTF rules and requirements. We do not authorize blades. We "approve" only the common equipment such as tables, balls and nets. In this case we also must ensure quality.
- why not 5mN? same as why not 5mm thickness of 3 mm thickness or why 11 points and not 7 points or 15 points. Any decision is based on a proposal made and backed by many experiments and explanations before a vote is taken. 25mN was felt to be by the experts as a good level of minimum friction, based on several tests made.
- the after treatment is what lead to the rule. Not the other way around. Once the rule was made, then if you wish to play in ITTF events you must follow ITTF rules. If you wish to use ITTF klogo on your rubber for sales, then you must produce a rubber that meets ITTF rules and requirements.

Your points:
- you are for stopping to make rules on things that did not need have rules.
I fully agree

- for allowing boosters and so as long as they are not harmful (Cigarettes are!)
All Boosters we tested were found to have harmful components. But the biosters are illegal for another reason, because they alter the rubber after it has been approved (rule 2.4.7)

- for putting the sport in the first place, not the rules.
You are right, the sport always comes first

- for supporting minorities, not try to rule them away (Players with frictionless long pimples)
They are all welcome to form their own association, or to find a new way to stay in this association. No one is chasing anyone away.

Adham

[adham]

Zitat von Ric

A very important point we should not forget:

More than 50% of all players in lower classes are older than 30 years. Long pimples etc. make is possible for them to win against clearly younger player. This is only possible in table-tennis. No other popular sport can offer this. But exactly this will be destroyed. The result will be:

1. Many older player will stop playing table-tennis.
2. The leading persons of our table-tennis-clubs are nearly exclusively older player. We will miss them, if they go.
3. And we will miss our coaches and after this our young players.

Quo vadis table-tennis?

Best wishes
Ric

Very pessimistic view.

Adham

[adham]

@noppennorbert

Thank you for your input and your opinions and suggestions. Why not make this proposal to your land association and to your national association?

There is one point that I find very contradictory. On the one had you say that the SLP (as you call it) can help an older player challenge a younger player, then on the other hand you say that it is no longer effective because after a few years of using the opponents know how to play against it? This seems like a counter-arguement that is contradictory. If it is so easy to play agaianst the SLP rubbers now as many have said, then what is the problem? It would mean that the users of SLP are at a disadvantage, so perhaps they should use something else, no?

However, I respect your opinion and se a lot of merit in your suggestions. Now you need a majority of national associations to think like you.

Adham

[adham]

Zitat von Tackiness

I'm sure that's a typo and should read "Royal Shark"

Why would you say that? Rather rude of you, no? And what is your real name? Tactless?

Adham

[Tackiness]

Zitat von adham

Why would you say that? Rather rude of you, no? And what is your real name? Tactless?

Good one! But apparently you're not familiar with smilies - I added to indicate that I was teasing and not making a serious remark. I couldn't resist the "spark-shark" slippage since your name is Sharara after all and so many here have trouble getting it right.

[noppennorbert]

Zitat von adham

Thank you for your input and your opinions and suggestions. Why not make this proposal to your land association and to your national association?

I have done this already because I know that it was first of all my association (or better members of it), that has brougt in the opinion that rules should be changed in a way that SLPs should be removed from the list.

Zitat von adham

There is one point that I find very contradictory. On the one had you say that the SLP (as you call it) can help an older player challenge a younger player, then on the other hand you say that it is no longer effective because after a few years of using the opponents know how to play against it? This seems like a counter-arguement that is contradictory. If it is so easy to play agaianst the SLP rubbers now as many have said, then what is the problem? It would mean that the users of SLP are at a disadvantage, so perhaps they should use something else, no?

However, I respect your opinion and se a lot of merit in your suggestions. Now you need a majority of national associations to think like you.

Adham

The deciding point is, that people used the SLPs for several years now and created a special technique suited for it. Although the effect of SLPs to the opponent gets smaller its still a felt advantage for the users because they don't have to change their playing style.
Having to use other rubbers for some users comes like starting from scratch, like having to learn tabletennis new from the beginning. It's a slight exaggeration, I admit, but it describes the feeling of many people. New angles for the racket, much more aggressive play on the backhand needed, no regularity between block and push...
The fact, that the opponents got used to play against the SLPs better and better doesn't harm nearly anyone I think.
For most people it's the finest playing a match as good as they can, with rallies as good as possible. If the opponent understands the mechanism how the SLPs work, the match itself is getting better what satisfies nearly everyone.
If the users of SLPs have to use different types of rubbers, their level and so the level of the matches will fall of in quality. The fun will be much smaller, ambition getting less, the same for the frequence of training. In the end of this development, a nameable number of people will quit.
So the SLPs are not a disadvantage but helped creating a special playing style with players getting used to it. The feeling is that they really have lost several years of exercise, now that these sort of rubbers are set out of the rules.
People used (and still use) Antitop Rubbers instead of this type loosing its greatest advantages when the two colour rule came into effect.
People aren't primarily playing to win, they are playing because they found something that suitetd their abilities and preferences perfectly. So many players still use Antitoprubbers and so would a nameable number of players do if SLPs still were allowed.

Best regards.

Tom

[Ric]

Zitat von adham

Very pessimistic view.

Adham

Sure, but I think parts of it are quite realistic, if we forget this point.

Ric

[Mighty]

Zitat von Neptune

NO WAY!!! This time they went too far !!!

Not at all. It was some players, who went too far. IMHO use of speed glue, boosters and frictionless pimples contradicted the spirit of existing rules.

50 Years ago a decision was made to restrict spin and speed and therefore a maximum thickness level for racket covering was adopted. Use of speed glue and boosters contradicts the spirit of that rule.

Some years ago use of blades without covering was made illegal because of certain effect. Frictionless pimples have the same effect, so use of them contradicts the spirit of that rule.

From this point of view we can't realy complain now.

[Neptune]

Zitat von Mighty

Not at all. It was some players, who went too far. IMHO use of speed glue, boosters and frictionless pimples contradicted the spirit of existing rules.

50 Years ago a decision was made to restrict spin and speed and therefore a maximum thickness level for racket covering was adopted. Use of speed glue and boosters contradicts the spirit of that rule.

Some years ago use of blades without covering was made illegal because of certain effect. Frictionless pimples have the same effect, so use of them contradicts the spirit of that rule.

From this point of view we can't realy complain now.

Why did the frictionless pimples player went too far? They used legal material for many many years authorized by the ITTF. So why are blades without covering the same effect? Sorry, I don't want to attack you, but that is nonsens.

[Mighty]

Zitat von Neptune

Why did the frictionless pimples player went too far? They used legal material for many many years authorized by the ITTF. So why are blades without covering the same effect? Sorry, I don't want to attack you, but that is nonsens.

If you really don't want to attack, you can easilly refrain from using words like "nonsens".

Blades without covering deal with spin the same way frictionless pimples do.

Yes, frictionless pimples with the ITTF logo were legal, but somehow also illegal. Because of the contradiction I mentioned. So ITTF itself was not consistent with it's own rules. A kind of legal crisis IMHO. It's resolved now.

Just relax and enjoy legal rubbers.