Looper Torture Index - Comparison Test >> Please stop using social rubbers (on ITTF LARC)

[James Z]

Choppers do not seem to understand how much spin has been lost with the 9 rule / regulation changes since 1983.
If you do not believe me, you can make a simple comparison test & see for yourself the difference in looper torture index.
First test the social rubber you are now using against a group of booster supremacist loopers
BTW what is a "social rubber" ? A "social rubber" is a rubber that has no real functional value in the 40+ plastic ball only era but only has a social value that you will be “little better” accepted by booster supremacists. When I say “little better’ I mean that you will never be accepted 100% as (athletically) equal , just less unaccepted.

The social hierarchy in tabletennis is
1. Booster supremacists > First class citizens
2 & 3 Short pips (on weak side only) & anti users > Second & third class citizens.
4. Players using rubbers on ITTF LARC > Fourth Class Citizens
The high aspect ratio super long pips are one level even below , sort of “untouchables” in the table tennis caste hierarchy.

So the social rubbers in table tennis are
1. short pips (weakside only)
2. antispin &
3. all long pips on listed on ITTF LARC

So now getting back to the test.

Now use the same blade & other side rubber, but instead of using a social rubber, stick on a high aspect ratio super long pips rubber.

Now test this racket against the same set of 3 or 4 or booster supremacist loopers, that you performed your test earlier.

Then decide for yourselves the difference in spin based on how the booster supremacists react to your chops.

Simple as that.

BTW you can also do a comparison test for a small blade against a super large blade using the same exact rubbers both sides against the control test of booster supremacist loopers.

Ideal testing would in a league or a tournament, which would also quickly reveal who your real friends are in table tennis.

BTW close to the table blockers currently using social rubbers can also perform the same tests

References
Click on links below
Functional Super pips vs useless long pips on ITTF LARC
What are social rubbers in table tennis
What are super pips
Fair Parameter values
9 Rule and Regulation changes by ITTF since 1983 to oppress pips players
Pip Design Parameters and Playing characteristics

[Kath 8788]

Stuart Marquis puked with reply
The majority of table tennis players are probably 4th class citizens based on this scale. Since most table tennis players (including most two-winged loopers) will be using ITTF approved rubbers listed on the LARC and will not be performing any after-manufacture chemical treatment to their rubbers.

No this scale is not based on that. The scale is based on what "type" of rubbers are used by various players & how they are treated or disrepected by the ITTF's officially instituionlized bigotry against players using certain type rubbers other than illegally boosted or illegally speed glued inverted rubbers.

But if you want to continue your disinformation propaganda defending ITTF no matter what, you go right ahead & enjoy

But hold on a minute . You are the offficial certifying agent for ITTF regarding the use of speed glues & boosters , everyone else will have to take your word that there is zero illegal abuse chemicals.

[Nomzamo Mbatha]

Stuart Marquis shamelessly continues to kiss ITTF's behind by posting :
Unapproved high aspect ratio long pimples chopping a 38mm ball with the attacker using speed-glued rubbers that have been freshly glued onto the blade.

Wow how clever of you Mr.Marquis,
You want players to perfrom a comparison test using an obsolete 38 mm ball with using a high aspect ratio super long pips.
And what exactly would this prove ?
That the ITTF LARC long pips are very useful in the 40+ plastic ball ONLY era ?
REALLY ?

I understand your ITTF ass kissing to some extent & even threatening posters not to even think about high aspect ratio super long pips, let alone play with it , but this proposal of using an unused 38 mm ball in ITTF , really goes to show how madly you worship the ITTF & expect everyone to overlook the rampant ITTF corruption
You are a real piece of work

[Kath 8788]

On 2023. Thursday May 18 at 10:16 AM , Kuba Hajto wrote
Hmm... Against choppers I usually do "marathon chopper torture test".
Deep fast loop
Short touch on chop

Your make a valid point but is mostly a fantasy if you are considering two opponents of more or less equal skill levels

At the pro levels, if you try this , since the choppers are generally more superior athletically ^ are much faster, he or she would come in & loop kill or flat kill these weak returns.

At the amateur levels , most loopers (aka robotNazis) are not capable of doing this They do not have the touch. They will most likely put the ball into the bottom of the net or pop it up sky high for an easy kill by the chopper.

[Loop 888]

On THursday May 18, 2023, 11:12 AM , Stuart Marquis puked :
The majority of table tennis players are probably 4th class citizens based on this scale. Since most table tennis players (including most two-winged loopers) will be using ITTF approved rubbers listed on the LARC and will not be performing any after-manufacture chemical treatment to their rubbers.

Also, the comparison test you are proposing is flawed. If you wanted to get an accurate measure of how much spin the chopper has lost, its a bit more involved that just running two tests where you use ITTF LARC approved long pips in the first test and then swap those for unapproved high aspect ratio long pips in the second test. Choppers feed off of the spin from the attacker, so to get a true reading on what spin would have been for a chopper 25 years ago compared to today, you'd also need to to use a 38mm ball and have the attacker using a speed-glued racket, not simply a rubber with modern day booster. So test 1 would be:

ITTF LARC approved long pimples chopping with a 40mm plastic ball and attacker using a modern day booster on that rubber (although as I've said most loopers do not use after-manufacture chemical treatments on their rubbers so this might be a flaw in the experiment).

And then you compare that to test 2 which is:

Unapproved high aspect ratio long pimples chopping a 38mm ball with the attacker using speed-glued rubbers that have been freshly glued onto the blade.

While most of Stuart Marquis 's postings are incredibly biased & cleverly meant to kiss ITTF's ass to no end, this posting is even more blatently shameless.

James Z proposal was a simple comparison of current conditions of today in 2023 but Stuart Marquis cleverly deisgns his rwply to kiss iTTF ass by comparing 38 mm ball spin to spin from high aspect ratio super long pips. He further deliberately confuses the issue by mixing up the speed glue with all this.

James Z's teats keeps all other test conditions the same. Stuart Marquis wants to confuse the issue comparing 38 mm ball long pips against high aspect ratio super long pips. Stuart Marquis conveniently left out the long pips currently listed on ITTF LARC. Hmmm gee I wonder why.

There are so much other nonsense in Stuart Marquis ''s reply to James Z, one would think no one should bother to respond. But unfortunately there are tons of social rubbers users out there who really believe that ITTF believes in diversity & cares about pips / anti players. So I will respond to this extreme nonsense later

[Loop 888]

Stuart Marquis write
ITTF LARC approved long pimples chopping with a 40mm plastic ball and attacker using a modern day booster on that rubber (although as I've said most loopers do not use after-manufacture chemical treatments on their rubbers so this might be a flaw in the experiment).
And then you compare that to test 2 which is:
Unapproved high aspect ratio long pimples chopping a 38mm ball with the attacker using speed-glued rubbers that have been freshly glued onto the blade.

If I may ask, how is injecting the 38 mm ball & speed glue relevant to current conditions ? Unless the ITTF that you so fondly kiss up to is planning to revert to 38 mm celluloid ball.

The current condtions use 40+ plastic ball not the 39 mm cellloid ball.

You can design all kinds of theoretical conditions but those tests have no practical relevance.

For the current conditions James Z has clearly establised that the ITTF LARC long pips are 200% pure crap.
It is just that you, Stuart Marquis do not want choppers to make a simple comparison between the useless ITTF LARC long pips against high aspect ratio super long pips & discover the truth for themselves.