Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

ITTF's surprising short pip ban

Expand Messages
  • Reverend Gordon
    A few of us (Marty, myself, and a few others) have recently learned of a surprising and virtually unpublicized ITTF development, and it s time to inform the
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      A few of us (Marty, myself, and a few others) have recently learned
      of a surprising and virtually unpublicized ITTF development, and it's
      time to inform the hardbatters about it.

      The ITTF is on the verge of making a significant number of short pip
      surfaces illegal, including many of the hardrubber surfaces currently
      available. The ban will begin in July, and will include the
      following hardrubbers: Winning NP-1, NP-2, NP-6, NP-8, Friendship
      802, Andro Classic, Friendship 563, Joola Orthodox, Goldway 933, TSP
      MilliTall. Hock (Leyland) rubber, although not currently approved,
      is also out-of-compliance and thus could not be approved even if the
      fees were paid. Apparently, the rules now specify a larger MINIMUM
      pip size which many short pip surfaces are out of compliance with.
      They have let it slide for about 5 years, but are going to start
      enforcing it this year. I don't know what the USATT intends.

      Many SPONGE short pips rubbers are also affected. In all, 29
      products will become illegal. Some of them are: Butterfly Challenger
      Chop, Impartial20, and Resilon, DHS PF4-652, DoubleFish 820, Meteor
      845, TSP Giant, Yasaka Omote, Nittaku Magic Carbon, TSP Spinpips, and
      others.

      Needless to say, I was shocked. I've even called a couple of
      distributors about it and they were unaware of the impending ban.
      The problem for us, is that after the ban takes effect, there will be
      fewer hard rubbers that will be legal in normal tournament play, and
      none of them are the really "classic" ones (except Butterfly
      Orthodox, which apparently just meets the new specs). Another problem
      is that, without ITTF approval, availability of these products will
      surely drop off quickly, and manufacturers are highly unlikely to
      continue making them.

      I am currently involved in a long series of frustrating exchanges
      with the ITTF. Nobody, including Rufford Harrison and Odd Gustavson
      (the equipment chairman) knows why the small pips were outlawed.
      They also say it is "too late" to do anything about it. Any thoughts
      on how the hardbat committee should proceed?

      Scott
    • robo_junior
      ... Maybe this is the opportunity for the hardbat community to adopt a standard rubber, be it BTY Orthodox or some other (hopefully inexpensive :-) hard
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In hardbat@yahoogroups.com, "Reverend Gordon" <sgordon@s...> wrote:
        > The problem for us, is that after the ban takes effect, there will be
        > fewer hard rubbers that will be legal in normal tournament play, and
        > none of them are the really "classic" ones (except Butterfly
        > Orthodox, which apparently just meets the new specs). Another problem
        > is that, without ITTF approval, availability of these products will
        > surely drop off quickly, and manufacturers are highly unlikely to
        > continue making them.

        Maybe this is the "opportunity" for the hardbat community to adopt a
        standard rubber, be it BTY Orthodox or some other (hopefully
        inexpensive :-) hard rubber.

        > I am currently involved in a long series of frustrating exchanges
        > with the ITTF. Nobody, including Rufford Harrison and Odd Gustavson
        > (the equipment chairman) knows why the small pips were outlawed.

        The obvious conspiracy theory is that Butterly arranged it. The only
        classic hard rubber still legal is BTY Orthodox. What year did that
        product get introduced (or-introduced)? What year did this rule get
        passed? Hm...

        Yeah, that's it, BTY wanted to corner the lucrative hardbat market!!!! :-)

        (Just kidding, Butterfly folks, if you're listening--you know I love ya!)

        > They also say it is "too late" to do anything about it. Any thoughts
        > on how the hardbat committee should proceed?

        Despite being an equipment junky in the sponge realm, I'd support the
        standardization of the hard rubber surface as long as it's not the
        plasticky junk on $5 rackets from Walmart. I've played with BTY
        Orthodox only for about ten minutes on a borrowed racket, but I think
        I could be happy playing with that despite being more used to spinnier
        products like Friendship 799.

        Of course, single sourcing is a problem and I'd hate to be captive to
        the 800lb gorilla of the industry.
      • Loscavio
        I like Victor s idea of a standard rubber . Moreover, I like the idea of everyone using the exact same rubber and blade combination -- whatever that may be --
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          I like Victor's idea of a "standard rubber". 
           
          Moreover, I like the idea of everyone using the exact same rubber and blade combination -- whatever that may be -- maybe something in the middle of the spectrum.  This would make the issues of determining a paddle's eligibility very easy. 
           
          It would be cool to test this at a future Hardbat fest --- everyone using the exact same (rubber/blade) and see how it works. 
           
          This "same paddle rule" is exactly what we have in the sport of volotennis (www.volotennis.com), which I co-invented. Everyone must use the exact same $8 paddle -- The purpose is to compete based on skill rather than equipment.
           
          Panda out

          robo_junior <victor_kan@...> wrote:


          --- In hardbat@yahoogroups.com, "Reverend Gordon" wrote:
          > The problem for us, is that after the ban takes effect, there will be
          > fewer hard rubbers that will be legal in normal tournament play, and
          > none of them are the really "classic" ones (except Butterfly
          > Orthodox, which apparently just meets the new specs). Another problem
          > is that, without ITTF approval, availability of these products will
          > surely drop off quickly, and manufacturers are highly unlikely to
          > continue making them.

          Maybe this is the "opportunity" for the hardbat community to adopt a
          standard rubber, be it BTY Orthodox or some other (hopefully
          inexpensive :-) hard rubber.

          > I am currently involved in a long series of frustrating exchanges
          > with the ITTF. Nobody, including Rufford Harrison and Odd Gustavson
          > (the equipment chairman) knows why the small pips were outlawed.

          The obvious conspiracy theory is that Butterly arranged it. The only
          classic hard rubber still legal is BTY Orthodox. What year did that
          product get introduced (or-introduced)? What year did this rule get
          passed? Hm...

          Yeah, that's it, BTY wanted to corner the lucrative hardbat market!!!! :-)

          (Just kidding, Butterfly folks, if you're listening--you know I love ya!)

          > They also say it is "too late" to do anything about it. Any thoughts
          > on how the hardbat committee should proceed?

          Despite being an equipment junky in the sponge realm, I'd support the
          standardization of the hard rubber surface as long as it's not the
          plasticky junk on $5 rackets from Walmart. I've played with BTY
          Orthodox only for about ten minutes on a borrowed racket, but I think
          I could be happy playing with that despite being more used to spinnier
          products like Friendship 799.

          Of course, single sourcing is a problem and I'd hate to be captive to
          the 800lb gorilla of the industry.







          ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
          Help save the life of a child. Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's
          'Thanks & Giving.'
          http://us.click.yahoo.com/6iY7fA/5WnJAA/Y3ZIAA/jvbolB/TM
          --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


          Yahoo! Groups Links

          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hardbat/

          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          hardbat-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




        • Bruce H. Liu
          How about grips? Are we gonna standardize the grips, too? /Bruce ... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            How about grips? Are we gonna standardize the grips, too?

            /Bruce

            --- Loscavio <loscavio@...> wrote:

            > I like Victor's idea of a "standard rubber".
            >
            > Moreover, I like the idea of everyone using the exact same rubber and blade
            > combination -- whatever that may be -- maybe something in the middle of the
            > spectrum. This would make the issues of determining a paddle's eligibility
            > very easy.
            >
            > It would be cool to test this at a future Hardbat fest --- everyone using the
            > exact same (rubber/blade) and see how it works.
            >
            > This "same paddle rule" is exactly what we have in the sport of volotennis
            > (www.volotennis.com), which I co-invented. Everyone must use the exact same
            > $8 paddle -- The purpose is to compete based on skill rather than equipment.
            >
            > Panda out
            >
            > robo_junior <victor_kan@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > --- In hardbat@yahoogroups.com, "Reverend Gordon" wrote:
            > > The problem for us, is that after the ban takes effect, there will be
            > > fewer hard rubbers that will be legal in normal tournament play, and
            > > none of them are the really "classic" ones (except Butterfly
            > > Orthodox, which apparently just meets the new specs). Another problem
            > > is that, without ITTF approval, availability of these products will
            > > surely drop off quickly, and manufacturers are highly unlikely to
            > > continue making them.
            >
            > Maybe this is the "opportunity" for the hardbat community to adopt a
            > standard rubber, be it BTY Orthodox or some other (hopefully
            > inexpensive :-) hard rubber.
            >
            > > I am currently involved in a long series of frustrating exchanges
            > > with the ITTF. Nobody, including Rufford Harrison and Odd Gustavson
            > > (the equipment chairman) knows why the small pips were outlawed.
            >
            > The obvious conspiracy theory is that Butterly arranged it. The only
            > classic hard rubber still legal is BTY Orthodox. What year did that
            > product get introduced (or-introduced)? What year did this rule get
            > passed? Hm...
            >
            > Yeah, that's it, BTY wanted to corner the lucrative hardbat market!!!! :-)
            >
            > (Just kidding, Butterfly folks, if you're listening--you know I love ya!)
            >
            > > They also say it is "too late" to do anything about it. Any thoughts
            > > on how the hardbat committee should proceed?
            >
            > Despite being an equipment junky in the sponge realm, I'd support the
            > standardization of the hard rubber surface as long as it's not the
            > plasticky junk on $5 rackets from Walmart. I've played with BTY
            > Orthodox only for about ten minutes on a borrowed racket, but I think
            > I could be happy playing with that despite being more used to spinnier
            > products like Friendship 799.
            >
            > Of course, single sourcing is a problem and I'd hate to be captive to
            > the 800lb gorilla of the industry.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >




            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
            http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
          • robo_junior
            I wouldn t go so far as to require the same blade, and certainly not the same grip or handle style. I think the current rules about all-wood only are fine. To
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              I wouldn't go so far as to require the same blade, and certainly not
              the same grip or handle style.

              I think the current rules about all-wood only are fine.

              To clarify my position on the standard hard rubber surface, I don't so
              much want ban all but one surface (or a few, nearly identical
              surfaces), as make lemonade when given lemons.

              I'm happy with the variety of hard rubber surfaces in use today, but
              it's not that important to me that I get to keep using 799 or 802
              specifically. So I wouldn't go to extraordinary efforts if either
              were banned (799 because it's really a medium pip rubber, or 802
              because it is banned by ITTF).

              --- In hardbat@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce H. Liu" <bliu911@y...> wrote:
              > How about grips? Are we gonna standardize the grips, too?
              >
              > /Bruce
              >
              > --- Loscavio <loscavio@s...> wrote:
              >
              > > Moreover, I like the idea of everyone using the exact same rubber
              and blade
              > > combination -- whatever that may be -- maybe something in the
              middle of the
              > > spectrum. This would make the issues of determining a paddle's
              eligibility
              > > very easy.
            • John Lam
              Hi Gordon, is there any update on the pips ban ? JohnL
              Message 6 of 6 , Feb 11, 2005
              • 0 Attachment

                Hi Gordon,

                is there any update on the pips ban ?

                JohnL

                >From: "Reverend Gordon" <sgordon@...>
                >Reply-To: hardbat@yahoogroups.com
                >To: hardbat@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: [hardbat] ITTF's surprising short pip ban
                >Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:22:00 -0000
                >
                >
                >A few of us (Marty, myself, and a few others) have recently learned
                >of a surprising and virtually unpublicized ITTF development, and it's
                >time to inform the hardbatters about it.
                >
                >The ITTF is on the verge of making a significant number of short pip
                >surfaces illegal, including many of the hardrubber surfaces currently
                >available.  The ban will begin in July, and will include the
                >following hardrubbers: Winning NP-1, NP-2, NP-6, NP-8, Friendship
                >802, Andro Classic, Friendship 563, Joola Orthodox, Goldway 933, TSP
                >MilliTall.  Hock (Leyland) rubber, although not currently approved,
                >is also out-of-compliance and thus could not be approved even if the
                >fees were paid. Apparently, the rules now specify a larger MINIMUM
                >pip size which many short pip surfaces are out of compliance with.
                >They have let it slide for about 5 years, but are going to start
                >enforcing it this year.  I don't know what the USATT intends.
                >
                >Many SPONGE short pips rubbers are also affected.  In all, 29
                >products will become illegal.  Some of them are: Butterfly Challenger
                >Chop, Impartial20, and Resilon, DHS PF4-652, DoubleFish 820, Meteor
                >845, TSP Giant, Yasaka Omote, Nittaku Magic Carbon, TSP Spinpips, and
                >others.
                >
                >Needless to say, I was shocked.  I've even called a couple of
                >distributors about it and they were unaware of the impending ban.
                >The problem for us, is that after the ban takes effect, there will be
                >fewer hard rubbers that will be legal in normal tournament play, and
                >none of them are the really "classic" ones (except Butterfly
                >Orthodox, which apparently just meets the new specs). Another problem
                >is that, without ITTF approval, availability of these products will
                >surely drop off quickly, and manufacturers are highly unlikely to
                >continue making them.
                >
                >I am currently involved in a long series of frustrating exchanges
                >with the ITTF.  Nobody, including Rufford Harrison and Odd Gustavson
                >(the equipment chairman) knows why the small pips were outlawed.
                >They also say it is "too late" to do anything about it.  Any thoughts
                >on how the hardbat committee should proceed?
                >
                >Scott
                >
                >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.