Minimum friction level for long-pimpled-rubbers

[Mark Neef]

On September 15th I wrote a letter to the ITTF-President to protest against the plans to define a standard of a minimum friction level for long-pimpled rubbers. It refers to a letter from Marc Melzer http://www.ittf.com/stories/Forum_de...?ID_Forumn=89&

Dear Mr. Sharara,
I was very surprised about your answer from September 9th to the letter from Marc Melzer about the issue of long-pimpled rubbers, because I read in an Interview with you in the german tt-magazine in June 2006 the following comments:

"I can understand this argument, but I am rather for more flexibility with the racket. We need material, which helps the defense players. Which coach today already places a defence player into his crew? The risk is mostly too high it. We need therefore material, which makes it possible for the defence players to control the ball better perhaps plastics. If it is permitted the companies to develop material for maximum spin then they should be allowed to develop also the suitable opposite material. It is simply not possible to standardize all material. That would like that be, as if all singer in a competition like "Germany looks for the superstar" have to sing the same song."

Now, three months later, I determine that you changed your opinion very quickly. You now say, that it's necessary that we need a minimum friction level as a standard and "...it will follow that some non-treated pimpled rubbers may also not meet the required standard and, therefore, they will be removed from the approved list."

It think this stands in contradiction to what you said in the interview three months ago, but I hope that you didn't change your generell attitude for more flexibility with the racket, and so that you prevent that a minimum friction level will be set as a standard or at least that this standard is not set so that a lot of long-pimple-rubbers, especially to produce backspin when blocking against topspin, will be bannend from the authorised racket coverings list. Please regard that we talk about "non-treated rubbers"
coming from the authorised racket coverings list. I'm the same opinion like you, that rubbers which are self-treated from players, were forbidden in the past and as well as they are forbidden in the future. The manipulation of a rubber is criminal and if a minimum friction level is set to bann these cheaters i would welcome it!

I know, that the isuee of the minimum friction level is applied to the ittf mainly from tabletennis-responsible persons in germany. You should know, and Marc Melzer mentioned it already in his letter, that there is a raising number of defence tabletennis-players, like me, which don't want to loose their rubbers from the authorised racket coverings list because they need it as a weapon against the more and more faster becoming attacking materials and there for we need your support. This stands in connection to your words of "more flexiblity with the racket." and we hope and we believe that you didn't forget them.

Best regards,
Mark Neef
Player and former president of TTF Neckartenzlingen e.V. - Germany http://www.ttf-neckartenzlingen.de



On September 17th I got this response:

I do not see any contradiction. There is a difference between "unpredictable" behaviour of the ball (based on the point of contact between the ball and the rubber, and other factors that make the resultant
inconsistent) and better equipment for the defensive players. When an attacking player imparts spin on the ball, you can tell what he did. It is true that today with high friction rubber, speed glue and high speed rubber, the actual resultant from an attacking player is overwhelming to the defensive player. With this I agree completely. Therefore, my interview with the magazine was intended to state that "new" equipment should be developed to "counter" this overwhelming effect. In other words, to give the necessary tools to the defensive player to be able to respond to the attack. But not to give a tool that will make the attacking player make errors based on misjudgement caused by the rubber. This is not the right way. Yes, I would like more flexibility in rubbers and blades, but at the same time we need standards. The coefficient of friction is one such standard. And I hope that the manufacturers will be able to produce better tools to allow the defensive player to excel based on his/her own skills and using the adequate type of racket/rubber to allow the defensive player the ability to rally with the best attacking player. This is the right way in my opinion.

I really appreciate you taking the time to write me and expressing your concern. Your love for our sport will always prevail regardless of what equipment you end up using.

best regards,

Adham Sharara

Now some questions:
How should the table-tennis-manufacturers for defence rubbers produce better tools, when they get more and more restrictions ?
- the aspect ratio
- lower spin because of the 40mm ball
- the plans for a minimum friction level Do we really need more disadvantages for defence players ?

I think that slippery long pimples are completely calculable, since the rotation of the arriving ball is only returned: topspin becomes backspin and the opposite. For an experienced, trained player they are no bigger problem and in Germany there are several coaches which precisely adjust there players to play against slippery long pimples. And if slippery long pimples are so effective, why there's no player with this material in the top-500 of the world ?

What do YOU (player, trainer, responsible person, functionary) think about that ?

[Nosti49]

Zitat von Mark Neef

On September 15th I wrote a letter to the ITTF-President to protest against the plans to define a standard of a minimum friction level for long-pimpled rubbers. It refers to a letter from Marc Melzer http://www.ittf.com/stories/Forum_de...?ID_Forumn=89&

....

Now some questions:
How should the table-tennis-manufacturers for defence rubbers produce better tools, when they get more and more restrictions ?
- the aspect ratio
- lower spin because of the 40mm ball
- the plans for a minimum friction level Do we really need more disadvantages for defence players ?

I think that slippery long pimples are completely calculable, since the rotation of the arriving ball is only returned: topspin becomes backspin and the opposite. For an experienced, trained player they are no bigger problem and in Germany there are several coaches which precisely adjust there players to play against slippery long pimples. And if slippery long pimples are so effective, why there's no player with this material in the top-500 of the world ?

What do YOU (player, trainer, responsible person, functionary) think about that ?

There are several points regarding slippery long pimples to be considered:

a) Players, who are
- not well trained
- do not have "the feeling" or
- simply have no player with slippery long pimples in their clubs
do not have a good chance to win, when playing against these players.

b) It causes frustration, especially, if a player for example has a better technics in general and sees that it is possible for many GLP-players to beat -simply using on 70-80 percent of the table their back hand + slippery long pimples- a technically perhaps better trained player.

c) The majority of the players hating the gloss-pimple-players (or slippery-pimple-players) can be surely found in the area of lower class players, as especially these players have big problems against GLP (glossy long pimples).

d) Only GLP-players -of course knowing well their own material and its effect- can state "GLPs are completely calculable". For these players themselves they are calculable, of course. But please be realistic: it is similar -but not even the same- as if a left hander says "left handers are completely calculable". THE TRAINING AGAINST THESE PLAYERS is missing, which will result in possible loosing of games.

e) Theoretical knowledge does not necessarily mean a practical knowledge. See point d).

f) Resulting from the above it is clear that both players used to play against GLP and well-trained players with the respective "feeling" have no/not too big problems against GLP.


So I can really understand why several players prefer no to play against this sort of players.

A minimum friction level is therefore preferred by many players.

Especially in order to solve the problem of "self glossing" players, who always treat and manipulate the GLP-rubber against the ITTF rules, which of course is not at all sportsmen like.

With a "friction rate" measuring equipment the GLP players will have no problems anymore, -even if glossing the rubber afterwards- as the minimum friction is then well-defined and no longer subject to any discussion.

An other problem, however, is the final decision about the exact friction rate !!!! Here the GLP-players should keep an eye on the respective ITTF-commitee and try to make it "as less as possible".

Ciao
Norbert

[Christian Moser]

I sent following email to the ITTF-President and others:





Dear Mr. Sharara,

To start with let me thank you very much for the time you are spending in answering the questions and concerns from many players around the world on the minimum friction level issue for pimpled out rubbers.

A national association can indeed make changes to the rules, thank you also for mentioning that. However it should be pointed out that the national association can only interact within the national rules that are applicable to any national event.
The players have to stick to the rules of the ITTF for any international event.

As to the issue about frictionless long pimpled rubbers the proposal of preparing, establishing and introducing a minimum friction level has been made by the ITTF Equipment Committee.
The ITTF Board of Directors has thereafter given an official mandate to the Equipment Committee to conduct studies, gather information and finally implementing a minimum friction level later.

The Board of Directors is an ITTF committee consisting of various national representatives. However it should be noted that it is an ITTF directory.

According to the ITTF website (section “Directories”) the Board of Directors is composed of the following members:
• Executive Committee (7)
• Continental Vice Presidents (6)
• Continental Representatives (32)
• Committee Chairmen (Co-opted)
In that regard being the president of the ITTF and its widely acknowledged leader you do have the possibility to encourage and give guidelines to its members for any decision making.

Mr. Sharara, you have greatly influenced the setting up and implementing of all major changes in table tennis over the past few years. Many of these changes have been overall successful, the best example being the new scoring system up to 11 points which has certainly been beneficial to the attractiveness and TV coverage of our sport.
However the new pimples out rule will neither affect the TV or press coverage nor help table tennis in gaining even further professionalism at the top level.
It will only deprive a great number of players at the base of our sport of their favourite equipment which is – ironically – the only material used in table tennis that is totally and entirely predictable since it cannot impart spin on the ball by itself quite unlike reversed rubbers.
As to the number of defensive players who use frictionless long pimpled rubbers let me point out that there exists a large and increasing figure especially in lower leagues all over the world. Taking away their equipment would further penalise them. Due to the introduction of the 40mm ball, the reduced aspect ratio of 1.1 and the ever increasing speed and spin of blades and rubbers defensive game has become less and less effective over the last years.
Frictionless long pimples allow to return heavy topspin balls with a good backspin (albeit if the attacking player plays intelligently and just lifts the ball it will not help much either if at all). Looking at the ITTF world ranking (top 500) one cannot make out even one defensive player – among those few that are being left –who uses frictionless long pimples.
So in conclusion a frictionless long pimpled rubber is definitely not an unpredictable weapon in the hand of choppers or blockers.

I look forward to hearing from you

Best regards

Christian Moser




PS: This open letter will be published in various table tennis forums for discussion. We should like to get input especially from players who play with inverted rubbers. We do know that many attacking players love to play against frictionless long pimpled rubbers since they consider it being an advantage for their own game.
We shall keep you posted

[Christian Moser]

and that was his answer:

Dear Mr. Moser,

Thank you for your message and your very kind words.

Please allow me to clarify some points:

1. ITTF Decisions
Decisions at the ITTF level regarding rules are made either by the
Annual general Meeting (AGM) for matters concerning Chapters 1 and 2
of the ITTF Handbook (1. Constitution, 2. Laws of the Game), or by
the Board of Directors for Chapters 3, 4 and 5 (International
Competitions, World Championships, Anti-Doping code). Propositions
are received by a deadline from National Associations or ITTF
Committees. Therefore, to make a change to the current rule regarding
coefficient of friction for pimpled rubber, a proposition must come
from either the committee involved (Equipment Committee), which is
unlikely, or from a national association. All other efforts to make a
change to this rule, although noble and appreciated, are actually a
waste of time and will not affect the regulation in any way.
Therefore, I meant that to change an ITTF rule, your best bet is
through your national association and not through me or any e-mail
campaign.

As you noted very correctly, the Board of Directors includes more
than 50 persons, of which I only have 1 vote, exercised only in case
of a tie. Of course the President of any federation does have
influence, but before any rule is changed a proposition must be made
as explained in the previous paragraph.

2. Defensive Style
By your own admission, and the admission of many who have written me,
the so-called "slippery long pimples" have not really produced any
defensive players of note and it is very easy to play against.
Therefore, this type of rubber is not the solution to produce or
protect the defensive style of play, nor does it seem to be of any
use, according to you and others, in abating the offensive style.
Therefore, the real reason for being against the new rule must be for
other motives. I believe I understand the real reasons. Many players
may find that the rubber they use is no longer legal and they must
change it. This is very annoying, and this reason I fully understand.
All the arguments about the defensive players, the defensive style,
etc., do not hold water for me. They are just excuses. The real
reason I accept is that many players who use this type of rubber
because they like it may have to change if their rubber becomes
illegal. I am very sorry about this, but that is what happens when we
must implement a regulation, there is always a minority that may
suffer. But my role as ITTF President is to look at the bigger
picture. We definitely need a regulation regarding the coefficient of
friction in order to give proper guidelines to manufacturers and also
the necessary tools for our Umpires to judge the legality of rackets.

I also understand that some manufacturers, one in particular, may
lose a chunk of business if their product is no longer legal. Again,
I am sorry about this, but this same manufacturer will be able to
sell new products replacing the illegal ones. So, over a long term
period, players will adjust, manufacturers will adjust and this new
rule will be fully accepted.

Please feel free to post this answer on your web-site. I have spent a
lot of time on this matter, more than it deserves, but I was touched
by the sincerity and concern of our players and felt it important to
respond to each one of them on a subject that is dear to their heart.
But this is my LAST correspondence on this subject, so I wish you and
all your colleagues all the best, and I sincerely hope that you will
all find a positive solution regarding your equipment and that you
will continue to enjoy our beloved sport.

Over and out.

Adham Sharara
ITTF

[Otterbock]

[Matthias Landfried]

Here is a letter from Brian Halliday:

FROM: Brian Halliday, VETTS Newsletter Editor
TO: Adham Sharara, Odd Gustavsen, Rudi Sporrer, Alex Murdoch

Dear Mr Sharara

I refer you to your recent replies to the letters from Marc Melzer and Christian Moser in the President’s Forum concerning the issue of long-pimpled rubbers.

I am extremely concerned that your colleagues and yourself have not taken into account the untold harm you are doing by trying to negate defence at the expense of attack.

There were a number of world class players who, in the early nineteen sixties, forecast the end of the sport when sponge was introduced. Although from that date the onus was on attack, defenders were still able to hold their own by eventual technical know how coupled with athleticism.

Over the ensuing decades the sport’s commercial connections have introduced all manner of speed and spin enhancing innovations to assist the attacking player. We have had faster and faster reversed rubber surfaces coupled with various thicknesses of sponge, together with more tacky and spinier surfaces. One has only to look through any commercial table tennis catalogue to see that at least 85% of the rubbers are aimed at producing speed and spin. We have various types of speed glues and now have the tensor innovation as well.

There are a number of points that spring to mind.

1. If it is the declared intention of the ITTF to reduce drastically the frictionless element of long pimples, why cannot the same rules be applied to the tensor effect and high tension technology. This certainly alters the characteristic of the rubber by expansion. Again it is one rule for the attackers at the expense of the defenders. I am sure you will recall the furore, many years ago, over the Tony Hold rubber and whether or not it “had been baked in an oven”. Nobody questions this rubber now, which is still on the market - baked or not. There have been any number of rubbers produced that have had peculiar characteristics but with trial and error players have adapted to them..

2. Some time ago I contacted Mr Gustavsen to enquire whether the Spinmax product had been authorised by the ITTF. This product is used by players as an additional spin enhancement and is sold by the manufacturers on this premise. I was advised that the ITTF considered this product to be a “cleaner” and therefore did not require ITTF approval. I can well understand why the ITTF wanted to sweep this under the carpet, as they did not want to upset the manufacturers, but it does, without question, alter the characteristics of the rubber. Presumably the ITTF would be happy with players coating their rubbers with strawberry jam? Another nail in the coffin of the defender who now has an additional product to cope with. It would seem that the ITTF is obsessed with pandering to commercial interests by placing the onus on speed at all costs.

The argument that a certain material is used on long pimples after manufacture can be compared with the relevant dyes that are included when reverse rubber is produced eg why does red rubber play faster than black. What are the characteristics of all the various colours of sponge. How are some surfaces tacky and some not. Is the tacky surface put on after the rubbers manufacture? If not how on earth does it get there?

3. The decision (taken by the narrowest of voting margins) to reduce the aspect ratio was a real killer for defensive players everywhere. Every defender worth his salt will tell you that the decision taken was flawed and even our own English No 1 decided to retire when it became obvious that second rate internationals could hit straight through him with remarkable ease. (I watched him play at the Europeans in Zagreb, and it was too embarrassing for words). It is not good enough to say that the defensive arts can be taught now by adjusting techniques. It seems obvious to me that the “dwell” time of the larger ball on the racket is markedly less than the 38mil ball and this coupled with the reduction in pimple ratio has done the game a grave disservice. To accuse coaches of not being able to teach the defensive game is ludicrous. All coaches ask for is a level playing field. You have implied that using such rubbers (frictionless) provides the quick route to success. This may be true in certain instances but I can assure you from personal experience that it is very much harder to teach the techniques required than to actually play against these rubbers. The only way one can dictate any sort of policy is to play with and against this equipment and talk to the experts who actually play the game.

4. Is it not too much to ask that long pimples (both frictionless and non frictionless) should be retained in an attempt to give the defender a chance against the dreaded third ball attack game? When Stan Jacobson introduced the loop drive all those years ago he made top class international stars look ridiculous, however it did not take players long to adapt. It is the same with the spin reversal from frictionless rubbers. It is not easy to play against it at first but it does become much easier with practice, and knowledge of the required techniques. I have seen this in practice at my club where we have a very proficient player with frictionless rubber who nevertheless invariably loses to the higher rated players who have become used to spin reversal. I note that you agree with this assessment.

5. From my past observation at ITTF Annual General Meetings it is evident that the sport is dominated by the top players and their needs. The majority of these players (who play professionally for a living) require fast rubbers and any product that will enhance this. (The proposal to ban speed glue on health grounds was overturned when the top players representative pointed out that “it would affect their livelihood”) The ITTF should not pander to the needs of the elite few at the expense of all the rank and file players world-wide. If frictionless rubber is so evil can you explain why there are so few defenders in the World’s top 100, in fact as far as I can ascertain there is not one player in the top 400 who uses this rubber At two Annual General Meetings I raised the question as to what the ITTF intended to do to make the sport more attractive to both the player and the spectator by introducing a level playing field to ensure the return of the defenders with flair. I have noted Mr Gustavsen’s comments and report on the ITTF website and recognise that this is a complex issue. However if you were to consult the rank and file players they have an easy answer – “limit the thickness to one and a half mm”.

6. There are now thousands of veteran players all over the world, many of them use frictionless and non frictionless long pimples for a number of reasons
a) They want to try for a level playing field when they meet a younger and perhaps more athletic opponent who tries to impose the “third ball” game coupled with services that are difficult to read, and/or b) They want to outwit or confuse a player within their own age group. c) The game has been likened to a chess match and veteran players embrace and indeed welcome “funny” rubbers and the cerebral problems it brings. To take this aspect away from them serves the game no purpose.

This constant opposition by the ITTF to the defensive arts will drive players from the game, especially veterans.

7. You state in your letter that you are unaware of any concerns from players around the world however you have received emails from around the world that have expressed concern. You won’t have heard many complaints from the grass roots of the sport because the vast majority of players don’t know what is in the mind of the ITTF, and just accept the status quo.

As I understand the position it is that there was a proposition from the ITTF Materials Committee to the Board of Directors to provide a mandate to conduct laboratory tests to provide a minimum friction level. Then it was up to the ITTF committee to leave it as it is, set a minimum friction level to prevent players to treat the rubber after homologation or to impose a level that would kill frictionless pimples. The impetus for change does not appear to have come from a National Association. Can you explain?

One of my table tennis tasks is that I am the appointed editor of the VETTS Newsletter. The above subject is, I believe, of truly significant importance to players everywhere. I am devoting a large part of the next Newsletter to this subject and am inviting a response from the membership, which incidentally includes members from Germany and the rest of Europe.

I hope that one of the “P” in your P4 Plan is for Participation because this is what is at stake. We don’t want people to give up the game at any level and I am afraid that this totally misguided concept that has been suggested is a reason for people to walk away. Please use your influence with your colleagues to reverse the decision for the sake of our sport.

May I suggest that the ITTF keep on allowing frictionless long pimples but take appropriate measures to prevent players from illegally treating rubbers after homologation. That really is all there is to it.

Yours sincerely

Brian Halliday



Mr Adham Sharara, President, ITTF
as@ittf.com


Copies to:
Mr Odd Gustavsen, Chairman, ITTF Equipment Committee
o-gu@online.no

Mr Rudi Sporrer, Chairman, ITTF Rules Committee
r.sporrer@oettv.org

and Mr Alex Murdoch, Chairman English Table Tennis Association Lim

[kagin]

I know there has been much discussion on this forum regarding the possible future rule that would introduce a friction requirement on long pips. Unfortunately i do not understand german and cannot participate in these discussions. However from what i have seen much of the discussion centers around whether such a rule would be good or bad for the sport. I believe that topic is not even up for discussion at this point.

Officially, the origin of this potential rule is from the following board of directors resolution:

"A requirement that for the racket coverings the rubber surface should be uniform and without coating shall be included in the Technical Leaflet."

This resolution says nothing about introducing a minimum friction level. Nor does it specify a type of rubber (inverted, short pips, or long pips), and therefore any attempt to establish a minimum friction requirement for one type of surface goes beyond the board of directors resolution, and should not be added to the equipment rules.

Based on statements i've seen from adham sharara, it is assumed that this change will be made with no further voting required at an AGM. If that is the case, i believe somebody in the ittf is acting beyond their authority. The ittf member associations have never passed a resolution requiring a minimum (or maximum) friction level for any rubber surface.

I will be writing a letter to my national association (USATT) explaining the situation, and i hope players in other countries will do the same, requesting action from their ittf representatives. If the ittf will not listen to players, i hope it will listen to its member associations.

Kagin Lee
Chicago, USA

[Tony_Iommi]

Well, and how did that turn out? Do you just cope with the situation or do you plan on further protesting? Or, alternatively, simply ignore the rule? Here in the States, I'd bet that there will be a singificant number of players just disobeying it.