In 1977 , ITTF banned all actual "long" pips by setting the maximum allowed pip length to 2.00 mm.
Long pips arrived around mid 1970s
Liang Geliang was becoming extremely successful in a matter of years.
He was getting to be successful that the frustrated Hungarian team called the then Chinese premier Chou En Loi and complained.
This was the height of cold war era & Chou En Lai called the Chinese team not to play Liang Ge Liang.
You can read more about this in Tim Boggan's book "history of TableTennis"
Anway my point is that actual long pips that were longer than 2.00 mm were available before 1977. Some were close to 2.50 mm.
But ITTF promptly banned them around 1977 by setting the maximum allowed pip length to 2.0 mm.
Lot transpired between 1977 & 2024 to oppress choppers & other pips players by repeatedly limiting capabilities (12 times) if fake long pips that existed after 1977. That won’t be detailed here but had been discussed elsewhere.
But the 12th change at the 2024 AGM will be discussed here.
Read the next posting in this thread by me for more information. This post was an introduction and historical background information to set the stage
More ITTF Brainwashing- Planned confusion about Pip Length
-
Pipsation
- Posts: 4
- Joined: September 3rd, 2022, 10:38 pm
- Country: भारत India
- City & State: Amritsar
- Playing Style: Loop & block
- Grip: Shakehand
- Cohort: .
- My blade:
- Blade Type: .
- Side F rubber brand:
- Side F rubber type: .
- Side B rubber brand:
- Side B rubber type: .
- Orientation: .
Re: More ITTF Brainwashing- Planned confusion about Pip Length
At AGM 2024 , ITTF made a rule change increasing the maximum allowed rubber from 4.00 mm to the current 4.05 mm .
Why ? Because the robotNazis were complaining that they are being get caught because the booster they use illegally expanding the sponge, causing rubber thickness to exceed 4.00 mm. So promptly accommodated the robotNazis by increasing the limit from 4.00 mm to 4.05 mm.
But ITTF also increase the maximum allowed pip length from 2.00 mm to 2.05 mm . Why ? Because they wanted to create an illusion that they are providing a benefit for pips players. But the simple fact of the matter is that pips length was around 2.50 mm before ITTF banned them in 1977. There is almost zero benefit if any from increasing the pips length from 2.00 mm to 2.05 mm in light of the 14 rule changes to limit pips between 1977 & 2024.
But ITTF knows pips players especially choppers are clueless idiots & they could be easily fooled because choppers do not understand what 2.05 mm means compared to 2.50 mm. The difference absolutely enormous in terms real implications of producing back spin.
So the pips fools need to understand this crucial difference & why this rule change was made by ITTF to fool the choppers yet again
Why ? Because the robotNazis were complaining that they are being get caught because the booster they use illegally expanding the sponge, causing rubber thickness to exceed 4.00 mm. So promptly accommodated the robotNazis by increasing the limit from 4.00 mm to 4.05 mm.
But ITTF also increase the maximum allowed pip length from 2.00 mm to 2.05 mm . Why ? Because they wanted to create an illusion that they are providing a benefit for pips players. But the simple fact of the matter is that pips length was around 2.50 mm before ITTF banned them in 1977. There is almost zero benefit if any from increasing the pips length from 2.00 mm to 2.05 mm in light of the 14 rule changes to limit pips between 1977 & 2024.
But ITTF knows pips players especially choppers are clueless idiots & they could be easily fooled because choppers do not understand what 2.05 mm means compared to 2.50 mm. The difference absolutely enormous in terms real implications of producing back spin.
So the pips fools need to understand this crucial difference & why this rule change was made by ITTF to fool the choppers yet again
- avello
- Posts: 28
- Joined: September 3rd, 2022, 9:54 pm
- Country: Indonesia
- City & State: Surabaya
- Playing Style: All round
- Grip: cPen (Chinese Penhold) RAG (Reverse Asian Grip)
- Cohort: .
- My blade:
- Blade Type: .
- Side F rubber brand:
- Side F rubber type: .
- Side B rubber brand:
- Side B rubber type: .
- Orientation: .
Re: More ITTF Brainwashing- Planned confusion about Pip Length
This is an amazingly brilliant move by ITTF to brainwash the clueless chopper fools. 'Pipsation wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2025, 9:12 am But ITTF knows pips players especially choppers are clueless idiots & they could be easily fooled because choppers do not understand what 2.05 mm means compared to 2.50 mm. The difference absolutely enormous in terms real implications of producing back spin.
So the pips fools need to understand this crucial difference & why this rule change was made by ITTF to fool the choppers yet again
How ? Loopers gain a massive advantage from going from 4.00 mm to 4.05 mm but this rule change was mae actually to protect the booster cheats because a 4.00 mm rubber will expand to 4.05 mm. But the irony is the ITTF says in its rule 2.4.7 & regulation 3.4.2.2 that boosting in unapproved.
Imagine that ...........make a new rule change to protect cheaters that violate an old rule LOL
But on the flip side choppers gain absolutely zero advantage because this same 0.05 mm is for regular glue that sticks the OX rubber to the wood.
Unless of course ITTF wants to claim that all OX rubber users boost , which is absurd.
Also the 0.05 mm gain is negligible for choppers.
The optimal pip length after the (click link >)14 rule and regulation changes since 1977 by the ITTF to severely limit the choppers in the current 40+ mm plastic ball only era is between 2.50 mm and 3.00 mm AND not between 2.00 mm and 2.05 mm
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 1 Replies
- 1952 Views
-
Last post by Felax
-
- 2 Replies
- 4998 Views
-
Last post by avello
-
- 1 Replies
- 1530 Views
-
Last post by Dobgan
-
- 0 Replies
- 2202 Views
-
Last post by James Z
-
- 1 Replies
- 2499 Views
-
Last post by BrianM
-
- 0 Replies
- 2138 Views
-
Last post by Power Spin
-
- 2 Replies
- 3357 Views
-
Last post by Uschi
-
- 0 Replies
- 2129 Views
-
Last post by d3niam
-
- 0 Replies
- 2547 Views
-
Last post by Anwar Mo
-
- 0 Replies
- 2294 Views
-
Last post by Felax