The ban was NOT at all aimed at Liu Guo Liang's pips.Blahness wrote: on Wednesday March 27, 11:45 AM #110
I think they got discouraged when they banned LGL's pips
It was a continuation of ongoing oppression of long pips that started in 1998 with the Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction Regulation Massacre. It really has nothing to do with Liu Guo Liang's short pips.
Why ? Because when the max pip densiy was dropped from 50 pips per sq.cm down to 30 pips per sq.cm it made short pips less spinny and more faster. But since Liu Guo Liang uses spinny inverted on the other side of his racket , it would only have increased the "spin contrast" between forehand and backhand of his racket because the pips side less spinny (& faster) now.
In fact it would have helped Liu Guo Liang if he had adopted because his his forhand would have been faster & flatter. But I donot blame him for feeling uncomfortable to having adopt to a newer rubber. Also he was clsoe to the end of his career.
The reduction in pip density in 2004 at least in Liu Guo Liang's case has much less effect on top spin production capability of short pips but has more significant effect on back spin production capability of so called long pips, which actually became medium pips with the 1998 Durban AR reduction change. ITTF just wanted to make sure they ensured long pips were less effective every 2 or 3 years............ther had been 8 more rule & regulation changes after the 1998 Durban Regulation, to oppress the coppers & other defenders.
Did the 2004 pip density regulation reduced the spin production capability of short pips ? Sure it did. But keep in mind that short pips , in the context of and as contrasted to long pips or spinny inverted is NOT a spin centric rubber. Short pips are essentially speed centric rubbers meant for forehand block & smash style of shakehand or TPG (traditional penhold grip) or with short pips or forehand in HPG style ( Hybrid Penhold Grip)