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

I own Reach C8, C801 & Monster. I use for half and one month C8 with great success, still not tried C801 nor Monster so what differences could I expect?

Also I own Magic 77 and before to use I want to know the differences vs Reach C8?

merlin el mago wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2024, 8:23 pm I own Reach C8, C801 & Monster. I use for half and one month C8 with great success, still not tried C801 nor Monster so what differences could I expect?

Also I own Magic 77 and before to use I want to know the differences vs Reach C8?

Click on link below
Reach C8 and C801

you will see the detais in the middle of description page.
I am attaching the screen shot

The Aspect Ratio of C8 is only 1.14 (2.4 / 2.1) Similar to useless ITTF
But the Aspect Ratio of C801 is 1.36 (3.9/2.2) Similar to what was before 1998 Duran Aspect Ratio Reduction Regulation Massacre

So you will ger more back spin and spin reversal on your chops and chop blocks using Reach C801 copared to Reach C8

Both these pips are what are called mushroom pips
C801 is very similar to Yung 63-9A , which no longer ITTF approved because of the 1998 ban
Deng Yaping used 63-9A befor she switrched to RITC 755

Mushroom pips are narrower at the bottom at the base & wider at the top (looks like a mushroom) .

This is a great blocking rubber but I found it a little hard to control

I recommed you try C801 also

merlin el mago wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2024, 8:23 pm Also I own Magic 77 and before to use I want to know the differences vs Reach C8?

I currently use Magic 77, it is the best all round rubber I have used.
It is not a deceptive rubber and more like Feint Long (cloassic versio) but only more spin reversal.

Thanks to answer James, yesterday I used exclusively Magic 77 with Donier Defensive blade for my training time, my feelings comparing vs Reach C8 are:

-Better control.
-More gears possible due to increased control.
-Block more or less the same danger for opponents not too difficult to make for both long pips.
-Chop block more or less the same danger for oponents, not too difficult to make for both long pips.
-Chop far the table more or less the same danger for opponents but it seems more easy to make with Magic 77 because with Reach C8 it's needed more force to come back the ball to the other side of the table. Also chop far the table seems the strong key to win with both long pips especially if oponents are strong and very good loopers.
-Where it's more clear the difference in control is pushing, possible because the C8 pips seems hardest than Magic 77 pips or Magic 77 are longer or more elastic? I really don't know....

For sure I will try Reach C801 and rapport.
Did you tried Reach Monster?
What blade do you recommend for these pips?
What's the aspect-ratio of Magic 77?

TIA for your time & advice really appreciated.

merlin el mago wrote: ↑September 27th, 2024, 1:24 am
Did you tried Reach Monster?

I saw the link you posted for Reach monster in another thread.
I will order & try.

merlin el mago wrote: ↑September 27th, 2024, 1:24 am What's the aspect-ratio of Magic 77?
TIA for your time & advice really appreciated.

I do not know the Aspect Ratio of Magic 77
I looked for the manufacturer to askk but I cannot find them

What blade do you use with Magic 77?

merlin el mago wrote: ↑September 27th, 2024, 1:24 am
What blade do you recommend for these pips?

Depends on whether you are

1. Specialist chopper
or
2. specialist blocker
or
3. All round

If you are an all round player you can basically use any blade

But if you are specialist chopper or speeiclist blocker you need an asymmetric blade with different layer composition for backhand & forehand.
You can have a composite layer like ALC on forehand side if you loop a lot from that side or you will have a ZLC or carbon on forehand side if you mostly hit on that side.
But the most important thing is that you cannot have a composte layer on the slim pips side even as an innner layer , let along an an outer layer which is far worse. Because a composte layer with an OX slim pips (ITTF) or real long pips totally kills the effectiveness of slim long pips
You want some soft slow wood with maximum dwell time to enhance the power of long pips.

The second equally important thing is the width & length of the blade. You cannot have a blade less than at least 167 mm by 167 mm if you are a speeiclist blocke or at least 170 mm by 170 m, if you are a speeiclist chopper. Because you want to maximize (back spin) spin reversal.
There are no such prodction blades because manufacturers don't seem to care about the fact that the ball size has increased 2 mm & is also plastic & not celluloid. (Even 40- celluloid balls had more back spin than plastic balls) .

So if you are a specialist chopper there are no such bladesthat are made commercially. You will have too have one made by custom blade makers.

If you are a specialist blocker there may be few blades that may be close enough like some Dr.Neubauer blades or Hallmark blades but even them are not large enough.

All the Butterfly or Victas or Stiga etc blades are garbage because they have symmetric layer composition . The composite layer blades are evn worse because all these production blades have a composite layer on both sides.

I am using mostly custom blades with a 172 mm by 172 mm size.
I have carbon on forehand only.
I have been experimenting with various layer compositions bur still have no clue for exact layers especilly outer obe, especially on long pips side. Also I am far from a decent blade maker.
Since I do not play in tournaments anymore, it really does not matter

I was pure blocker close to the table but now I'm allround.

I tried custom made asymmetric blades with only one side of carbon but always the other side without carbon become more hard, I tried also comercial combi blade but there is not too much difference between sides.

As pure blocker I lowered the speed of the blade till can't do properly any attack with forehand.

I left pure blocker because it's very difficult if not impossible to get a blade with one side with the speed & the other without speed.

My journey as pure blocker arrived to use only defensive blades but attention not all defensive blades are ok for pure blocker or chop-block because a lot of defensive blades are intended for classic defense far from the table, arrived to conclude the best blade must be stiff but not hard to avoid bounce, also light weight because I need fast movements and if head heavy the blade have more speed and less control, other important things as pure blocker is not to use big blades and thick blades because you are playing near all time over the table.

Other reason I left pure blocker it's the lost of gears that I have now playing a mix of chop-block or block close to the table and classic defense far from the table, also very good players don't have too much problems with only disruption but the high aspect-ratio rubbers is other history so the weapon can change to lose for to win.

merlin el mago wrote: ↑September 28th, 2024, 12:30 am I left pure blocker because it's very difficult if not impossible to get a blade with one side with the speed & the other without speed.

I used Hallmark combination ultra but discontinued
They have Ultra now but not sure it is the same
They may have few others
Dr.Neubauer also has a few such blades you describe

@Way to Spinny
Thanks but now don't need it anymore an asymmetric blade.

@James Z

What about the speed difference between Reach C8 & Reach C801?

What about the speed difference between Magic 77 & Reach C801?

merlin el mago wrote: ↑September 28th, 2024, 6:30 am @Way to Spinny
Thanks but now don't need it anymore an asymmetric blade.

What blade are you using now ?
Is it a symmetric composite blade ?

merlin el mago wrote: ↑September 28th, 2024, 6:32 am What about the speed difference between Reach C8 & Reach C801?

Do not know . I only used C801
The only difference is Aspect Ratio.
I guess the rubber with higher aspect ratio will give you more spin but less speed

merlin el mago wrote: ↑September 28th, 2024, 6:32 am What about the speed difference between Magic 77 & Reach C801?

Good question. I have not used C801 enough to make a comparison because to me spin & control were more important & I chose Magic 77 because of it much better control.
I suspect C801 may exhibit non linear behavior becaus eof it mushroom type pip design.
But I did get more (back) spin from C801 if can control it LOL because I think it has higher aspect ratio than Magic 77

I use Donier Defensive blade that allows me to play close to the table with frictionless pips, still can play Donier with high aspect-ratio pips but I'm looking for a blade with more ease to do forehand topspin, I dislike balsa blades because lacks flex so it's difficult to make topspin, also I don't like carbon or fibers because have less flex and less dwell time between the ball and the blade like balsa.

I'm thinking several possibilities to play allround, try Stiga ARC WRB to see what happen with the speed & control.

If ARC is too much speed for backhand I will try to add 0,5 semi hard sponge to tame but experience said also tame reversal so will see how it goes to decide.

Also other reason to change blade it's that I will injure my arm when far 3-5 metres of the table to return the ball, so not only to attack with ease with forehand....

Tried Reach C801 and for me it's the more dangerous, has dampening, it's possible to play slow pasive blocks and fast pushes or side sweeps breaking the opponents timing, no free lunch because it's the more difficult to use but for me no come back to the others rubbers.

Have you tried Reach Monster?

merlin el mago wrote: ↑October 8th, 2024, 6:36 am Tried Reach C801 and for me it's the more dangerous, has dampening, it's possible to play slow pasive blocks and fast pushes or side sweeps breaking the opponents timing, no free lunch because it's the more difficult to use but for me no come back to the others rubbers.

Have you tried Reach Monster?

Are you using these rubbers in ITTF tournaments or non-ITTF tournaments and leagues ?
How do your opponensts feel about your using non ITTF approved rubbers ?
I personally don't care what my opponent uses but I was just curious about your experiences

Non ITFF tournaments & league because for sure don't let me compete.

merlin el mago wrote: ↑October 8th, 2024, 6:36 am Tried Reach C801 and for me it's the more dangerous, has dampening, it's possible to play slow pasive blocks and fast pushes or side sweeps breaking the opponents timing, no free lunch because it's the more difficult to use but for me no come back to the others rubbers.

Sounds Nice. I am tempted.
Seen these on Ali Express
Are these treated pimples?
Because I heard the treated ones break after maximum 2 sessions

Aren't treated, are high aspect-ratio.

merlin el mago wrote: ↑October 8th, 2024, 6:36 am Have you tried Reach Monster?

Can you please teel me how the pips look on Reach Monster ?
Are they straight cylinder or like Reach C801 (mushroom)

Also, are the pips on Reach Moster more slim compared to C801 ?
Both Reach Monster & C801 are listed at a height of 3.0 mm
If Reach Moster is more slim than C801 , then I would get more back spin (reversal) with Reach Monster
If Reach Moster is less slim (wider) than C801 , then I would get less back spin (reversal) with Reach Monster
How about pip density ? how close or farther away the pips are from each other
Which one has more pip density ? Reach Monster or C801 ?
If Reach Moster has denser pips than C801 , then I would get more back spin (reversal) with Reach Monster
If C801 has denser pips than Reach Monster, then I would get more back spin (reversal) with Reach Monster
I will wait for your reply & then decide if to order or not

merlin el mago wrote: ↑October 11th, 2024, 8:15 pm Aren't treated, are high aspect-ratio.

Thanks for the information

Mike 7222 wrote: ↑October 15th, 2024, 5:20 am

merlin el mago wrote: ↑October 8th, 2024, 6:36 am Have you tried Reach Monster?

Can you please teel me how the pips look on Reach Monster ?
Are they straight cylinder or like Reach C801 (mushroom)

Also, are the pips on Reach Moster more slim compared to C801 ?
Both Reach Monster & C801 are listed at a height of 3.0 mm
If Reach Moster is more slim than C801 , then I would get more back spin (reversal) with Reach Monster
If Reach Moster is less slim (wider) than C801 , then I would get less back spin (reversal) with Reach Monster
How about pip density ? how close or farther away the pips are from each other
Which one has more pip density ? Reach Monster or C801 ?
If Reach Moster has denser pips than C801 , then I would get more back spin (reversal) with Reach Monster
If C801 has denser pips than Reach Monster, then I would get more back spin (reversal) with Reach Monster
I will wait for your reply & then decide if to order or not

Reach Monster
Height 3 mm
Widht 2 mm
9 pips per 1 cm2

Reach C801
Height 3 mm
Widht 2 mm
9 pips per 1 cm2

merlin el mago wrote: ↑October 16th, 2024, 1:20 am
Reach Monster
Height 3 mm
Widht 2 mm
9 pips per 1 cm2

Reach C801
Height 3 mm
Widht 2 mm
9 pips per 1 cm2

May I ask how you made these measurements ?
Did you use some scientific instrumentss ?
Or just counted number of pips in a given area & estimated pip width & pip density
How did you measure pip height ?

Not that I worry about ITTF approved rubbers but I use it as a guide.
You can take a look at ITTF's latest pip parameters at the webpage below
Click on link below
ITTF Racket Coverings Technical Manual M4
The above document used to be called Technical Leafjet T4 before

Height & Widht are as per manufacturer.

About pips density I made 1 cm2 tool to see how many pips are, see attached pic.

https://ibb.co/K9vDJxb