iocTT.com :- The most advanced forum on table tennis

Kopp wrote: on August 16 at 12:57 PM #1
‘During his prime (1996–1999) Liu played with TSP Spinpips on his forehand and Mark V on his backhand, yet still on the Stiga Clipper blade. The Spinpip rubbers was banned in the late 2000 and their counterpart Spinpip Md the year after. Both times because of the aspect ratio (ratio of pips height to width) and its structure of the pip and the arrangement of the pips that made the rubber extremely spinny and unpredictable;

Are you a disinformation aganet for ITTF ?
All this is pure nonsense.

Before I proceed let me make it clear.
Liu Guoliang is one of the greatest players of all time.
Liu Guoliang is one of the greatest coaches of all time.
Liu Guoliang is one of the greatest pioneers of all time (his reverse penhold)


First of all Aspect Ratio is one of the least significant parameters for short pips rubbers. The maximum Aspect Ratio limit had always been set at 0.89 for short pips out rubbers & never was changed before or after 1998. The Aspect Ratio on the other hand has great significance from the perspective of long pips rubbers but that is not the issue discussed here.

Secondly the PDD (pip distribution density) reduction regualtion was passed around 2004 not in 2000. Yes the rubber was very spinny before 2004 but not unpredictable. You have near zero knowldge of short pips & long pips in this context.

The claim that PDD effected Liu Guoliang is a huge myth. Because before 2004 , the SpinPips rubber had more spin (with lesser speed) and not less spin (with more speed). The spin contrast between his backhand spinverted & forehand short pips would have been lower before 2004 , because short pips had more top spin and made it closer to spinverted. But after 2004, since short pips had less spin due to PDD reduction regulation, the racket had more spin contrast. So Liu Gup Liang had no excuse after 2004. But the real reason he declined was just his natural proceess of aging and being past his prime.

The REAL reason for PDD reduction regulation of 2004 has nothing to do with short pips even though the reduction in top spin production capability due to lower PDD was an unfortunate side effect. Yes the PDD reduction regulation was a secondary reason, which is to limit capabilities of pips.
The PRIMARY reason for PDD reduction regulation of 2004 was to further restrict long pips and their back spin production capablity because the ITTF was pressured by the robotNazis as the robotNazis felt the 1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction Massacre & 2000 big ball chnage were not doing its job enoughto limit the choppers & defenders.

Kopp wrote: on August 16 at 12:57 PM #1
Can he “fairly” be considered one of the greatest players of all time? He was playing with too great advantages, it's almost cheating.

It is totally hilarious when someone calls a short pips forehand player a cheat. Do you know how many shakehand short pips forehand players are in today's ranking list (like one one ? Mattias Galck) . Short pips is a little easier for penhodlers as there had been a few world champions. However one has to be the most talented to be able to use short pips on the forehand.

Was he playing with great advantage ? LOL Not even close if you consider the advantages of illegal spooster & spin glue cheats & the 9 rule and regulaton changes since 1983 to limit the pips players

Please visit this webpage to understand pip design parameters & playing characteristcs a little better

Tony's TableTennis wrote: on August 16 at 2:08 PM #4
LGL was heavily negatively influenced by ITTF rule changes.

Tony's Tabletennis, you still have a long way to go when it comes to understanding the history of tabletennis and the intricacies of rubbers & blades.
At least do your research before quickly posting some nonsense , just to be the first one to reply to every post & make a fool of yourselves.

Anyway the PDD (Pip Distribution Density) Reduction regulation was passed in 2004. By that time Liu Guo Liang was way past his prime.
Also please read Yoshiara's post above. He explains the concept of Spin Contrast , You need to understand that first.
Based on the concept of Spin Contrast, LGL would be doing better NOT worse with a pips out rubber with more speed & less spin on his forehand because it would have given a better spin contrast to his backhand spinverted rubber on his backhand.

As Yoshiara points out , LGL is a great champion, a a great pioneer & a great coach. But most humans always come up with novel excuses for their failures (though I do not think he failed here...........he just faded away due to age) .

I would like to hear from LGL exactly explain in technical terms how he failed due to the PDD Regulation of 2004.
Please also keep in mind that the period between 2001 to 2004 for a learning curve period after a major change at the end of 2000 (going from 38 mm ball to 40- mm ball) but this effected all types of players though mostly choppers.

Also as Yoshiara points out, the 2004 PDD Reduction Regulation was targetted at choppers not pips out hitters

NextLevel wrote: on August 17 at 3:11 PM #13
grass while it is not clay plays more similarly to clay than ever before and the serve and volley style is essentially dead.

Wow
Can you post some information this ?
Can you please explain how they make the grass courts play close to clay courts these days ?