iocTT.com :- TableTennis:-World's foremost multi-lingual discussion forum (Factual / parody). Free discreet membership to post. Simple registration. No email needed.

Je ne sais pas exactement combien de types de boutons existent.

Existe-t-il de nouveaux types de boutons, appelés boutons larges et boutons fins ?

Je n'en avais jamais entendu parler.

=============
It is not clear to me as to how many pimple type are there ?

Are there some new pimple types called wide pimple and slim pimple ?

Never heard of them before

PAy attention & read carefully over and over. because it may take some thinking for these comcepts to click

In OTT (Olympic TableTennis or ITTF's top spin limited version of TableTennis ..........not REAL TableTennis with all spins & diversity) of there are two major types of pimples

Slim pimples & Wide pimples

All pimples in OTT have a maximum limit of pimple length set at 2.05 mm (Was 2.0 mm after 1977 & before 2025)

The major difference between slim pimples & w ide pimples then is the maximum allowed width of the pimples.
This is set by what is called the Aspect Ratio of pimples.
This parameter was introduced by the ITTF in 1983 to confuse and mislead the clueless choppers. It has worked GREAT because to this day only a handful of humans on this planet who clearly understand the diabolical implications and intent of the ITTF in introducing this parameter . That is another long story.

Anyway. ITTF defines the difference between wide pimples and slim pips based on the maximum allowed Aspect Ratio. The maximum limit for Wide pips is set at 0.89 and for sim pips it is set at 1.1 (it was 1.3 before 1999)

So what does this all mean ? What are the implications ?
I will explain in my next post , so I won’t overload anyone with too much information

Ok next step

ITTF set the limit for the maximum pip length to 2.00 mm in 1977
It stayed that way til 2024m when it was increased to 2.05 mm. This is a negligible increase & had zero effect.
I will explain why it was done it a separate post later.

For now we will just discuss the aspect ratio.
Around 1983 the aspect ratio limit was set at 1.3 for slim pips (ITTF has continued to call these pips as "long" to this day and at 0.89 for wide pips (incorrectly called as "out" by ITTF).

Moving on , in 1998 , ITTF further limited the capability of slim pips by reducing the aspect ratio from 1.3 (set around 1983) down to 1.1.
What does it mean ? It did not mean they reduced the maximum length of the pips. This change only INCREASED the minimum allowed width of slim pips . Why & how ? Since the maximum allowed pip length remains the same m reducing the aspect ratio in 1998 only increased pip width.

1983 > Pip length 2.00 mm divided by Aspect Ratio of 1.3 gives the maximum allowed pip length of 1.54 mm
1999 > Pip length 2.00 mm divided by Aspect Ratio of 1.1 gives the maximum allowed pip length of 1.82 mm

So what does this mean ? What it means is that the increased maximum pip width , reduced the back spin producing capability of the slim pips after 1998. ITTF claims that increasing the maximum allowed pip width was for reducing the disruption by slimmer pips. But the problem was that this was a huge mistake. Because the higher disruption by TSP Curl 1 was NOT due slimness of the pips. It was due to the higher flexibility of the TSP Curl 1 pips and the material of pips compared to Butterfly Feint Long (classic) which actually has slightly longer pips than TSP Curl 1 .

The bigger problem was that almost all top & pro choppers were using the less deceptive Feint Long Classic . They were using it not because they thought it was more deceptive. They were using it because it was less deceptive (meaning more controllable)

ITTF knew all this in 1998. They still did it anyway sacrificing the top choppers as collateral damage. In fact in a 1998 interview , Scholer readily admitted that China submitted the names of these top 12 or so pro choppers who will be severely effected but Scholer did not care

Someone else posted in this forum the names of these 12 or so pro choppers.
I will find it & post it here later

In summary
Click link ITTF LARC uses 4 rubber types
In , Out , Anti & Long
This is confusing & also deceptive because “anti” is also “in” & “long” is also “out”.
Moreover, there are no actual Long pips in ITTF’s version of OTT - Olympic TableTennis
So the correct 4 names for ITTF LARC rubbers would be Spinny Inverted , Anti Inverted , Slim Pips (or flex pips) & Wide pips (or stiff pips) . (If you do not understand slim pips & wide pips, you need to read various topics in this forum that explains this more clearly)
Actual long pips that are not in OTT (Olympic Table Tennis or Top Spin Only TT) but are part of DTT (Diversity Table Tennis or All Spins TT) would be the 5th rubber type.

A phrase " medium pimples " is used for some pimples.

These are esentially two types

1. Wide pips (called "out" on ITTF LARC defined as those with Aspect Ratio less than 0.89) with some slim pips behavior (usually mostly disruption)
2. Skim pips (called "out" on ITTF LARC defined as those with Aspect Ratio more than 0.89 but less than 1.1) with some wide pips behavior (usually stiffness.

BY definition, there cannot be any actual long pips that can be medium pips because to be actual long pips in the 40+ platic ball only era, you need to have a minimum pip length of about 2.5 mm and an Aspect RAtio of at least 1.5. At these values it woul really mak no sense to make them wth any wide pips characteristics such as stiffness