Pip
Design Parameters & Playing
Characteristics
This
article discusses what the various pip design parameters & related
variant
are & how each of them affect the actual usage during play in a
table
tennis match
For
this analysis, to keep it simple, the effect
of varying each parameter is explained for
me keeping all other parameters the same. However,
in reality the overall behavior of the pips is usually determined by a
combination of 2 or 3 parameters which may be dominant. Or in some
cases a
single parameter may the most dominant. Another parameter (or few
parameters)
second dominant etc. etc.
Please
also view the following in the context of the current 40+ plastic ball
ONLY era
& the 11 rule & regulations changes since 1983 by ITTF to
partially or
fully limit and reduce the capabilities of choppers & block
defenders.
One
more warning :- There are no long pips
in ITTF’s version of Olympic table
tennis. What ITTF calls long pips are actually slim pips and what ITTF
refers
to as out or known as short pips is actually wide pips.
All this is explained in another paper in
this website called “Detailed Aspect Ratio calculations”
Spoosting
is short for boosting for both spin and speed.
Primary
Parameters
These
parameters define the identity of a long‑pips rubber. They
determine about
two thirds (~67%) of behavior of a rubber.
1. Pip
Height (aka pip length)
ITTF Rule 2.4.3.2 defines maximum pip length allowed as 2.0 mm
ITTF Tech Leaflet T4 Item B-2 sets minimum pip length at 1.0 mm
Longer pips can produce more spin, mostly back spin & side spin via
spin
amplification only (long pips cannot generate lot of spin on its own).
Interestingly, the longer the pips, lesser the top spin produced.
The lower the pip length the higher the speed and lower the speed.
The
longer the pip, higher the spin & lower
the speed
However please note that there is an optimal pip length depending on
many
variable such as the ball size. For
instance 2.00 mm was decent but not enough
for slim pips in the 38 mm ball era . However 2.00 m or even the 2.05
mm (after 2024)
is totally useless in the 40+ plastic ball era.
So an optimal pip length based on various
parameters that changed over time is about 2.50 mm to 2.60 mm. But anything longer may make the rubber
uncontrollable
for the 40+ plastic ball. If you extrapolate this you probably need a
pip
length about 3.00 mm to generate same amount of backspin for the 44 mm
ball,
which is somewhat popular in places like Japan but not ITTF approved.
The biggest problem with pip length for pips deceptively listed on ITTF
LARC as
long is that , though the ball size has increased from 38 mm to 40 mm,
there
was no corresponding increase in pip length needed to retain the same
(back)
spin
So in effect the ability to produce more spin (back spin & side
spin) has
been significantly reduced after 2000, when ball size was increased
from 38 mm
to 40- mm
Minimum
pip length is mostly relevant for short pips rubbers because if you
want the
maximum speed you want the lowest pip length, Some well-known
short pips
rubbers have been caught violating this lower limit.
2. Pip
diameter (aka pip width)
ITTF Tech Leaflet T4 Item B-2 sets maximum pip diameter as 2.2
mm (measured at the top or tip)
ITTF Tech Leaflet T4 Item B-2 sets minimum pip diameter (measured
at the
tip of pips) at 1.0 mm
Most pips are probably cylindrical with a few as trapezoidal cylinder
(with
diameter at top less than at the base) There seems to be no
maximum value
set at the base of the pips
The lower the diameter , the more the spin & lesser the speed
The higher the diameter, the lesser the spin & higher the speed.
With
pip length limit set at 2.0 mm (actually 1.7 mm if you make allowance
for base
of rubber & glue)
So,
an aspect ratio of 1.3 (before 1999) & pip length of 1.7 mm gives a
pip
width of 1.7 divided by 1.3 = 1.31 mm
An
aspect ratio of 1.1 (after 1998) & but same pip length of 1.7 mm
gives a
pip width of 1.7 divided by 1.1 = 1.55 mm and what this means is
that ,
you get less back spin (since 1.55 mm is greater than 1.31 mm).
3. AR
(Aspect
Ratio) (Height divided by diameter)
Higher the AR , the more the back spin.
When ITTF reduced the AR from 1.3 to 1.1 in 1998, what really happened
was that
though since the maximum allowed pip height was still kept at
the same
at 2.0 mm, the drop in Aspect Ratio from 1.3 to 1.1 reduced the
spin
producing capability.
Pip diameter would be 2.0 divided by 1.3 = 1.538 mm before 1999
Pip diameter would be 2.0 divided by 1.1 = 1.818 mm after 1998
So an increase in minimum diameter required to keep the maximum allowed
pip
height at 2.0 mm causes a decrease ability to produce spin.
BTW the actual maximum possible pip height is only about 1.7 mm to 1.8
mm
because the maximum allowed pip height includes the base of the rubber
as well
the glue
4. PDD
(Pip
Distribution Density)
Higher
the PDD , higher the spin & lower the speed, higher the control
Lower
the PDD , lower the spin & higher the speed , lesser the control.
ITTF
lowered the PDD in 2004 from 50 pips per sq.cm down to 30 pips per
sq.cm (a
whopping 40% drop) to further reduce the back spin capabilities of
defenders
because ITTF concluded that the 1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction
Massacre
& the 2000 introduction of the 40- ball was not doing the job
enough. ITTF
diverted the focus by misleading everyone that this only effect the top
spin
for player like Liu Guo Liang. Liu Guo Liang played along though by
2004 his
career was over and he had his eye on the future (Head Coach of Men’s
Team
& now ITTF Deputy President LOL). Same story as 40- ball which ITTF
claimed
will slow the sport down for better TV viewing though they knew full
well the
manufacturers will come up with faster rackets in a year or two to
return the
speeds back to 38 ball levels & top spins as well with spin glues
and now
boosters both undergo near 0% chemical testing for harmful chemicals.
This of
course cleverly masked the real reason that defenders lost more
backspin as
there were no improved rackets for backspin players to this day,
despite
another devastating setback for defenders with the 40+ plastic ball in
2014
& the plastic ball ONLY ruling of 2022.
5.
Pip
flexibility / stiffness
Stiffer
pips (as were traditional short pips) give less spin, more speed &
less
control.
More
flexible pips (traditionally only with slim pips) will in general give
more
spin, less speed, less control & more deception.
Neo
Short pips (or fake short pips) designs are made to imitate pips
listed
as short on ITTF LARC to behave like pips listed as long on ITTF LARC
by making
them more flexible & to sell more rubber claiming that an amateur
can get
as much spin & variations just like Ding Song or Hou Yingchao,
though fact
remains that these two were close to the top despite using short pips
(instead
of long pips) & not because of it as is the case with Mima Ito ,
who is not
playing upto her full potential like Deng Yaping. These neo short pips
are also
known as social rubbers as opposed to functional rubbers, because
lots of
players (including a lot of Japanese pro players) use these rubbers
more for
social acceptance & not suffer the wrath & disapproval of from
winged
inverted (spoosted) loopers who control the ITTF & are also
majority of
players in tabletennis.
Secondary
Parameters
These
shape stroke‑specific behavior. They determine ~15 % of performance.
6.
Pip top & side smoothness /
roughness / friction
Smoother
pip top & sides gives lesser spin & less control but more
deception.
The smoother (or glassy) the pips, the more frictionless is the
rubber
Rougher
pip top & sides gives more spin & more control & less
deception.
There
is a huge myth that the opposite is true mostly because of Tibhar Grass
Dec
& its success across the board. Yes Dtec can give more spin
regardless of
smooth top but it definitely is NOT due to glassy pip tops but is more
due to
other pips design parameters such as pips being more flexible almost as
much as
the TSP P1 Curl (the given excuse by ITTF for 1998 Durban Aspect Ratio
Reduction Massacre) & pip material also probably similar to
TSP P1
Curl. And its pips alignment is also horizontal , which is a chopper
design
& not a blocking design & this is why Dtec is more of an
all-round
rubber & neither blocking nor chopping though it works much better
blocking
mode than in chopping mode & Giant Dragon’s Dragon Talon is almost
identical.
You
can understand this better if you compare the glassy pip top to a
glassy anti
rubber. A glassy rubber will give the least spin & most deception.
Same
with a glassy pip top long pip.
Compare
this to the banned Butter Feint Long Classic (probably the
greatest
chopper rubber of all time used by almost all choppers before ITTF in
its
infinite wisdom banned it using TSP P1 Curl as an excuse with the 1998
Durban
Aspect Ratio Reduction massacre…..this is why it is names “massacre”)
or even
the Feint Long 2 which was useless in the 40- celluloid era or the
Feint Long 3
which are totally useless in the 40+ plastic ball ONLY era.
What
do these 3 rubbers (Feint Long Classic , 2 & 3) have in
common
? They have rougher pip tops & relatively slightly stiffer pips
compared to
Tibhar Dtec resulting in more control & more backspin & less
deception
& this is exactly why all the top choppers use Feint Long 3 &
blockers
use Dtec. These highest-level choppers use Feint Long for more
control
& more backspin & therefore definitely not for more deception
or think
they can trick the likes of Waldner or Ma Long with more deception.
Sure,
the real GOAT of all of tabletennis Joo SaeHyuk did try Dtec & Curl
P1R in
desperation (after first using Feint Long 3 very early on including his
finals
loss at Paris WITTC 2003 ) without seemingly not understanding
the real
reason for losing so many close matches at the highest level , which is
lowered
Aspect Ratio & PDD & pip length not increasing for the 40 mm
ball.
So,
the myth that frictionless pips such as Dtec gives more spin than Feint
Long is
pure nonsense
7.
Geometric
shape of the pips
Most
pips seem cylindrical but there had been some designs with lower
diameter at
the base than top or mushroom pips to increase deception. In this
context ,
strangely the most successful rubber at pro highest levels was in the
38 mm
ball era & was a medium pips rubber made by Butterfly called
Magnitude, which had smaller diameter pips sitting on top of larger
diameter
pips at the base Was used by both at the table all round hitters &
also by
all round choppers. Butterfly Magnitude rubber’s classification seems
to have
changed so many times on ITTF LARC. First it was Long , then out
(short) then
long again & now out again on July 2023 LARC LOL. Yung 63-9A was a
mushroom
pips design rubber supposedly used by Deng Yaping before her switching
to RITC
755
8.
Pip
alignment
Horizontal
pips alignment is generally from away from the table choppers
Vertical
pips alignment is generally for close to the table blockers
9.
Material content (chemical composition) of the rubber
This
can affect the stiffness or flexibility of the pips
10.
Base thickness
Thicker
base gives slightly more speed & less spin
Player
dependent Parameters
These
parameters decide how the top sheet is used with the
sponge or OX (No sponge) & the blade
used . They account for about
~10% of behavior.
11.
Sponge
hardness
Harder
sponge will give more speed and less spin
Softer
sponge will give lesser speed and more spin
12.
Sponge
thickness
Thicker
sponge will give more speed and less spin
Thinner
sponge will give lesser speed and more spin
13.
Blade
composition
Blade
composition can significantly impact racket behavior but this is a huge
subject
in itself to be explored here
14.
Blade
size
The
blade size is somewhat significant for at the table blockers
but far more critical for awy from the
table choppers
15.
Illegal
spoosting / spin gluing (of the
sponge)
Illegal
spoosting / spin gluing (of the sponge) will slightly increase spin
& speed
Note
:- spoosting = spin boosting
16.
Unapproved
treatment of pips
Primarily
used to increase deception. Not recommended since you can always find a
good
non-treated equivalent.
17.
OX
vs sponge
OX
sponge gives lot more variation & more control for players below
about
rating of 2200. Players above 2200 need thicker sponge to prevent the
ball from
getting into the wood and shooting off due to the much heavier incoming
(spoosted) top spins. If you are a player below 2200 , you are really
defeating
the very purpose of using long pips if you are using sponge because the
sponge
significantly offsets the advantages of long pips even if you are using
the
perfect blade. On the other hand, for players at above 2200 level, not
using
sponge may not only result in loss of backspin but also loss of points
with
balls shooting off the wood.
Environmental
parameters
These
parameters are the same in a given environment (38
mm celluloid ball or 40 – mm celluloid
ball or 40+ plastic ball) . Of course back
spin production capability was reduced significantly already with the
40_ mm
ball and only got worse with the 40+ plastic ball.
18.
Ball
size
Increase
in ball size has decreased both spin & speed for long pips users’
speeds
and spins have been returned to 38 mm ball levels for attacking spinny
inverted
users two or three years after 2003
19. Ball
material
(Chemical composition)
Plastic
ball can produce less (back) spin for long pips users (there is no
corresponding or offsetting decrease on the top spin end of the spin
continuum
however)