Actual long pips vs slim pips vs wide pips ve medium pips

[Alam560]

I am struggling to understand the differences

[Agustin]

You are not the only one who is confused.

Because ITTF deliberately wants players confused.

Because they do not want the chopper fools to understand that actual long pips were banned from top spin only Olympic table tennis at the 1977 Birmingham BGM
At the 1977 Birmingham BGM , ITTF limited the maximum length of all & any pips at 2.00 mm

Then in 1983 they set the maximum allowed Aspect Ratio of legacy pips (so called short pips) to 0.89 and for the rest of the pips 1.3

Aspect Ratio is length (height) of pips divided by width (or diameter) of the pips.

[Tarlese]

The most important fact you need to understand is this.

The difference between the two types of pips is not based on the length of pips, as the ITTF wants you to believe.

Because any pips can have the maximum allowed pip length of 2.00 before 2024 (2.05 mm after2024).
The only difference then is based on the width of pips and not the length of the pips.

This is why the appropriate classification is wide pips & slim pips NOT long pips and short pips.

Also traditionally wide pips (the legacy pips, which were the first official rubber in table tennis) were stiffer than slim pips.

This is why it is more appropriate to call one type as wide stiff pips and the other type as slim flex pips.

Long pips is a totally different story because there are no long pips in ITTF as they were banned at the 1977 Birmingham BGM

But some actual long pips that are not approved by ITTF are available on the market that you can use in non0ITTF tournaments aor leagues
You can even use these long pips even in ITTF tournaments if the tournament director allows it as is the common practice in China for all low level tournaments .
More and more non ITTF tournaments are also popping up in places like USA where you can use actual long pips (not the useless social ITTF slim pips)

[Kirana*]

I am struggling to understand the differences

And real long pips also have some of the properties of wide pips, because the width of the pimples is usually 2 mm and if they are stiff enough, you can do some wide pimples strokes

This is a bad idea unless the the goal is to design an all round rubber more towards medium slim pips design.
If you want to be a chop blocker you just want a Tibhar DtecS on steroids (I am speaking metaphorically not literally) version of actual long pips. Slim , flex & long. You do NOT want a rubber that is "stiff enough" .

This seems to be a problem with lots of slim pips and long pips designs. They seem to want to create an all round rubber with no specialization for what long pips were originally initially intended for ..........for chopping & later on for chop blocking.

I wish they would make actual long pips for chop blockers or choppers

Currently there are no such rubbers available
Though I would agree that Magic 77 or Reach C-801 come close but not good enough for the 40+ mm plastic ball era.
Where the chopper or chop blocker can handcuff the looper to just one loop like it was in the 38 mm ball era.
Nowadays in ITTF table tennis, the looper can just even backhand loop a chop off a slim pips return........it would be so funny if not being so pathetic