In the matter of long pimpled rubber, you start your argument with a false assumption. The correct issue is "treated" rubber, of which long pimpled rubber could be a sub-set, if treated. The minimum friction level is to set a standard and have a measurable indication of whether a rubber has been treated or not. Any other non-measurable method of determining if a rubber is illegally treated may fall in the realm of the "feeling" and "subjective" and will not be acceptable. Therefore, the ITTF is instituting a testing program based on scientific methods to determine if a rubber is treated or not. The coefficient of friction of course is one of the elements measured to make such a determination. 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. Unfortunately we may be throwing some babies with the bath water, but once a standard is set, then we must respect it.
Regarding your alarm that "players around the world are getting worried and even upset..." is news to me. As of this moment the ITTF has not received one complaint. On the contrary the pressure to set such a standard (coefficient of friction for pimpled rubber) came from the players themselves, at the mass participation levels, and especially from Germany. Therefore, I am not sure from where you get your information and how many really have complained to you. None have complained to us, and the general feeling is that the new regulation is welcomed.
This standard is NOT harmful for our sport; on the contrary it will help our sport and its participants.
Regarding your assertions about defensive players, of course I agree with you, but for different reasons. It is true that the increase of the ball of 40mm had a disadvantageous result for defending players. But not for reasons related to physics, but due to poor coaching of the players. To use the same defence techniques with 38mm ball and 40 mm ball does result in very poor defence. The technique with the 40mm ball is different, the point of contact with the ball must be different, the way to spin the ball effectively needs a different technique and the position of the player in relation to the table is also different. So taking into account the new physical properties of the 40mm ball and adjusting the techniques accordingly should produce as good defensive players as before. This was proven at the 2003 World Championships (defence player in finals), and since then some players are excelling in defence (Koreans, Austrian, etc.). The real reason we do not have many defensive players, especially in Europe is the fault of the coaches who either do not know how to form a defensive player, or want quick results, or they themselves believe that defensive players will not be successful. Another reason is that the sport evolves, and in our case it is evolving towards an attacking style. A highly successful defensive player may bring back the joy of defence to many young players. Yet another factor is that we live in a free market economy. Supply and Demand. The manufacturers sell more products for the attacking player, then it is natural that they cater more for that market and more products are developed to service that market. I appreciate the fact that the long-pimpled treated or untreated rubbers may give some advantage to a defensive player, but does it make the player better as a defensive player? This is very debatable. What it seems to do is make the opponent worse due to the high variation of spin received not through skill but through the properties of the rubber.
Regarding your physics dissertation, although most of your principles are correct, you ignore several factors. Long pimples are "long", and therefore bend. Therefore, your simplistic explanation does not hold water. It all depends if the rubber is treated or not, the point of contact, if the ball touched the upper surface of the pimple, or part of the side of the pimple, etc. Therefore, the variation is rather overwhelming. By establishing a standard coefficient of friction we will at least narrow this overwhelming variation and let the player rely more on their own skills and capabilities to produce such variations.
You should also note that some of your laws of physics explanations would only be true in a "vacuum", as you must very well know. However, we do not play table tennis in a vacuum, void of air resistance. Therefore, although I understand your overall attempt to prove your point through the laws of physics, unfortunately you proved to me the necessity of establishing some standards to control the development of our sport. If anything, I believe that we are too lax in the ITTF allowing too many variations in our equipment with very few limiting standards. This may be a rich quality of our sport, but I believe that we must operate within reasonable limits. You know of course that the moment a deviation happened in the Tennis racket, they immediately banned such rackets (spaghetti) and established even stricter rules to govern the racket. We have more liberal rules, very open possibilities, and very little control on uniformity. Again, I stress that this is the characteristic of our sport and we should not "thwart" it, but nevertheless we should establish standards to follow every now and then to better control the development of our sport.
And now I cannot sign off without challenging one of your statements that would negate your entire argument. If, as you say, the player could easily determine the spin on the ball and it is not "unpredictable", because you assert that the spin depends entirely on the opponent and it is just a mirror image of what the opponent himself/herself imparted, as this is your premise; then my question is, if it were so simple, “why would this peace of equipment be needed at all?” Your suggestion may be that we should be giving physics lessons to all players rather than limit the coefficient of friction. The ITTF's simplistic assumption is that it would be easier and better to establish standards.
In any case, I really appreciate your concern, but please accept that although some players may not be happy with the ITTF's decision, the majority are rejoicing with this decision as is very evident to me.
I hope that you will be able to adjust with this fact, and that you will take this opportunity to think about new methods that will attract our much-sought-after defensive players.
Have a great weekend and have a great German beer on me.
Best regards,
Adham Sharara
ITTF President
Dear Mr. Sharara
A vast and fast increasing number of table tennis players all around the world are getting worried and even upset about the ITTF decision to set up a minimum friction level for long pimpled rubbers. As none of the top players uses frictionless long pimpled rubbers, this sanction will have no influence on the top level table tennis and thus on the media performance of table tennis.
Nevertheless this sanction would be harmful to the rest of the table tennis community for the following reasons:
- The defenders and blocking players will become handicapped once again. You will remember that the aspect ratio was lowered from 1.3 to 1.1 in favour of the attackers and that the introduction of the 40mm ball entailed a further disadvantage for defenders and blocking players due to the greater inertia of the ball leading to a higher flight path and less backspin thereby undermining the basics of defensive game! On the other hand speed gluing, tensor rubbers and overall more and more powerful offensive rubbers made it increasingly difficult to prevail against attackers by means of classical defence or blocking.
- The affiliation of young and old players in table tennis will be hampered. For many older players frictionless long pimples are the only means to oppose the lightning fast equipment of younger players. A further castration of defence play will lead to a segregation of adult and senior players, as it is the case in almost any other type of sports. Thus a typical and unique characteristic of table tennis would be abandoned without any necessity.
It would appear that the above-mentioned decision was initiated by persons unaware of basic physical principles of the table tennis ball mechanics. Due to an widely spread ignorance there are unfounded beliefs that the table tennis ball will be subject to an „unpredictable‰ flight path due to frictionless long pimples. It is really surprising that at the beginning of the 21st century mankind has enough knowledge in physics to initiate a flight to Mars but that a fraction of table tennis players fail to understand that the same physical laws valid for billiard balls, rockets, planets (and whatever else you might think of) also hold true for the mechanics of frictionless long pimpled rubbers:
action equals reaction
For further details look up at Newton‚s physics or just ask knowledgeable players, trainers, coaches or officials about frictionless long pimpled rubbers! They will confirm that the effect of frictionless rubbers is mainly a spin reversal procedure. This means the opponent‚s spin is more or less changed into the opposite spin: Topspin is changed into backspin, backspin into topspin. That‚s all to it. The player using frictionless long pimples cannot actively produce his own spin; he completely depends on his opponent‚s spin.
In conclusion let me ask you to reconsider the doubtful necessity of a minimum friction level for long pimpled rubbers as well as the consequences of implementing this action. Such an amendment would punish a seven-digit figure of players
- including but by no means limited to elderly and physically disabled people -
all around the world.
Yours sincerely
Marc Melzer
Viele Grüße,
Marc Melzer |
