iocTT.com :Most advanced multi-lingual discussion forum for tabletennis (Factual / parody). Uncensored. Free discreet membership to post. Simple registration. No email needed.

I will make a separate post for PH(penholders)
In this post I will talk only about (SH) shakehand players
Before getting into this , a brief explanation of what “spin contrast” really means
“Spin contrast” defines the difference in spin capabilities of a smart racket
A dumb racket with same rubber type (usually spinny inverted but applies to any rubber types) but different brands or thickness etc., has very little spin contrast.
The dumbest of dumb rackets would have a dumb blade as well as identical rubber on both sides.
A dumb racket is unnatural and totally against human biomechanics / physiology (functional) /anatomy (structural)
Only about 10% of human have equal forehand and backhand in any racket sport in terms of power consistency etc.
Tennis has recognized this more 55 years ago & moved on to two handed backhand with the likes of Borg , Connors , Evert etc.
Nowadays you see someone rare like Federer
In table tennis the problem is far worse
Because this backhand weakness is not your fault or anyone’s fault , ITTF & its coaches refuse to accept this & unofficially insists on everyone starting with dumb rackets & sticking with it. So in effect 90% of table tennis players play for the convenience of 10% or so of players who may have backhands stronger or better than forehand
But table tennis does provide a better option with smart rackets
One may not have a strong top spin backhand to be admitted into the ITTF’s elite world of top spin only Olympic table tennis
But you may have other playing styles that may be more suitable for you using smart rackets
Such as having a strong backhand blocking game using frictionless long pips or a chopping game using frictioned long pips
But of course ITTF does not want you to thrive using smart rackets and that is why they severely limit long pips with the14 rule & regulation changes since 1977 but pips players have been so thoroughly brainwashed they refuse to understand or accept this.
But if you are willing to accept this , you will dump your dumb racket and move on to a smart racket
The best smart racket has actual long pips on backhand side for most SH players
Almost all players using this type of smart racket seem to use forehand spinverted (spinny inverted) and actual long pips or slim pips on backhand (of course except when & if they twiddle…….that is a different topic not discussed here
This works for most younger players up to age around 40.
If you has played all your life using spinverted on your forehand it may make sense continuing.
But I gets harder to be a looping player or a chopping player when you get past 50.
What to do ?
It may make sense to switch to wide pips on the forehand keeping the ITTF slim pips or non-ITTF-actual-long pips on the backhand
You probably want a frictioned wide pips with thicker sponge on the forehand with frictionless OX ITTF slim pips or non-ITTF-actual-long pips on the backhand
This still would allow you still top spin or even loop on the forehand & also attack with flat hits but only block (not chop block) on the backhand
Or you can flip this using a frictionless wide pips with thicker sponge on the forehand with frictioned OX ITTF slim pips or non-ITTF-actual-long pips on the backhand
This is suitable if you can no longer loop due to health reasons or never learned to loop when you started playing. You will flat hit more on your forehand and chop block on your backhand .
So how does spin contrast differ in these 5 situations ?
1. Spinny inverted on forehand & frictionless OX slim pips or actual long pips on backhand as a looper and at the table blocker (Manika Batra , Sreeja Akula , Yashaswini Ghorpade)
2. Spinny inverted on forehand & frictioned OX slim pips or actual long pips on backhand as a looper and away from the table chopper (non pro or non semi pro chopper)
3. Spinny inverted on forehand & frictioned slim pips or actual long pips with thicker sponge on backhand as a looper and away from the table chopper (pro or semi-pro choppers only such as Joo SaeHyuk, the real GOAT of all of table tennis).
4. Frictioned wide pips with thicker sponge on the forehand with frictionless OX ITTF slim pips or non-ITTF-actual-long pips on the backhand
5. Frictionless wide pips with thicker sponge on the forehand with frictioned OX ITTF slim pips or non-ITTF-actual-long pips on the backhand
What is critical for you to understand is this.
The type of spin contrast provided by a spinverted/LP smart racket is very different from the spin contrast provided by a wide pips/LP smart racket
How ?
In the loop / block mode (at the table player) the spin contrast is between top spin (using spinverted) and lesser back spin using LP but with disruption
But in the chop / chop mode foe an away from table chopper the spin contrast is between amount of back spin on the chops using spinverted on the forehand against backspin using LP on the backhand. The problem with this is that the chops using spinverted on forehand provide more backspin than you can using say a frictionless wide pips . So the frictionless wide pips and frictioned LP provides the maximum spin contrast.
Of course, currently no top chopper exists that uses this combination Frictionless Wide pips forehand & frictioned LP backhand
This could be due to two reasons
1. No frictionless wide pips such as Butterfly Resilon are available in ITTF after the 2008 frictionless pips ban
2. Your attack becomes more limited because you cannot loop with heavy top spin. Even if you are going to attack with a flat hit you have to take the ball at its highest point . To do this you have to rush in & still play a perfect stroke. Because once the ball drops past the apex, the error margin dramatically increases unlike with a loop where you can get away with a much higher error margin even if the ball passed the apex (in fact it may even be better)
However at the amateur level this could be viable option for close to the table block and smash shakehand grip players.
This option of wide pips forehand and long pips backhand provides the maximum possible spin contrast for a player who cannot loop on the forehand

James also the total blade including the rubbers matter & also the size of the blade mattes, isn't the same to play close to table than far from the table:

Close to the table better no big size blades with no too much weight because this playing style needs to be maneuverable (not big size blade) and delicate touch inside or close to the table so you needs more control and for that you need less speed so everybody knows more weight = more power & more speed (not heavy weight blade) so use lightweight.

Far from the table is total opposite, you need a large size blade with a big sweep spot to return heavy topspin so you will have more chances to do a quality backspin due to the high sweep spot because you enhance the control that's the base for a classical defensive player, you need weighted blade because you need power & speed when you are far from the table.

As I see it's more possible to get a good o very good blade for classical defense than for close to the table defense.

merlin el mago wrote: on ↑March 17th, 2026, 10:03 pm
James also the total blade including the rubbers matter

Of course
I have been saying this for years now
This is the whole idea of a smart blade , is it not ?

merlin el mago wrote: on ↑March 17th, 2026, 10:03 pm
also the size of the blade mattes, isn't the same to play close to table than far from the table:

Yes blade size matters.
And yes away from the table choppers need the largest head size
Amateurs can easily use them because since OX is the absolute best for amateurs & they should not be using sponge under the pips.
Yes the blade may be heavier for the pro & semi-pro players because they need thick sponge under the long pips to absorb the super heavy loops from common law illegally boosted rubbers of loopers.
But they can handle the slight increase in weight.

But what happened historically was that attackers close to the table needed smaller blades since they use thick sponge both sides.
Add to this the weight of common law illegal boosters now & soein glues after 1970s as well.
And OX slim pips were not as popular in the early days and so chopper rackets were also was designed smaller though slightly larger

But now after 14 rule & regulation changes choppers need every small help they can get.
The increase in back spin "generation" (not just "reversal") and total "looper torture index" is much much higher when you take a 172 mm blade compared to a 165 mm blade. But most choppers even pro choppers (even the real GOAT of all of table tennis himself) are clueless about this because manufacturers see no incentive to make oversized blades.
There are many pictures of the lady GOAT Angelica Rozeanu (her game was based on awesome chopping defense) with her racket about 176 mm
Ex USA national chopper Derek May refuses to use oversized blades though his father Pete May (also a 2100+ chopper in his prime) uses an oversized cybershape smart racket
Most top players in hardbat days used oversized rackets
When I say "oversized" I am talking about at least 172 mm racket. A 165 mm blade is just a semi large blade but manufacturers continue to lie to players especially the choppers who had been so thoroughly brainwashed by the robotNazi controlled ITTF to stay clueless and ignorant

I agree with you that penhold at the table blockers especially chop blockers like Zhou Xintong need smaller blade because of weight even if OX for pips
But shakehand blockers with OX like Manika Batra or Sreeja Akula should be using slightly larger smart rackets and not the useless dumb racket like Butterfly Viscaria (Yes Butterfly Viscaria is probably the best for pro two winged loopers........amateurs should not be using dumb blades like Viscaria because they are useless in the hands of an amateur due to high dumbness on backhand side).

700 million Indian women & 100 million Indian men amateurs will blindly sheepishly follow what Manika Bata uses
But both Butterfly Viscaria & Tibhar Grass Dtec are pure garbage even for Manika Batra herself.
Even worse I could never understand why she is even using them without her being sponsored by them OMG
Butterfly & Tibhar are laughing all the way to the bank but what does she get ? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

As I said the more complicated blade is for close to the table players like me.

Viscaria isn't good because like all flex blades are good to made spin, back or top, no matter are very good for both spins but no good to block, also hard blades without flex aren't good to play close to the table because rebounds easily so you can't have control, for me the best blade to play close to the table is stiff not hard blade, not large, not heavy, stiff increase reversal & is very good to block and still can made both spins: back & top with the FH inverted rubber of course with OX LP you can't loop but you can push aggressive opening the side of the table because stiff gives you control.

About size of sponge for classical defense is like double inverted defense, I explain my point of view, no matter you are a classical defender or a looping machine player you have to left distance when you are attacked for two important reasons: one to have time to return the ball & second the ball will be with less speed & spin. I think for classical defense the sponge thickness is more related how are you more confident and have more control to manipulate the spin.

I listened Manika Batra used so I bought the Yinhe VVIP red OX to try & I will post mine opinion if it's good or not to play close to the table, attached pics. Looks promising will see how it goes.

James Z wrote: ↑March 18th, 2026, 1:11 am The increase in back spin "generation" (not just "reversal") and total "looper torture index" is much much higher when you take a 172 mm blade compared to a 165 mm blade. But most choppers even pro choppers (even the real GOAT of all of table tennis himself) are clueless about this because manufacturers see no incentive to make oversized blades.

To give some more context to blade sizes

Before I was able to have some custom made blades made I was using Giant Dragon Super Balsa 2. It is about 164 mm width
After that I am now able to have custom made blades now for past 5 years though I cannot really use them because I cannot play away from the table due to normal aging as well as back & knee issues .
I have a bunch of blades that are 175 mm width & length now

After using them I tried the Super Balsa blade just for testing purposes to chop away from the table.
I tested the blades the proper way > same rubbers both sides & same test looper opponents varying from ratings 1400 to 2200
I was like fish out of water using the Super Balsa blade .
The looper torture index was so low compared to the 175 mm blades that It felt like no back spin at all
The loopers were able to loop more balls & also push easier
But against the 175 mm blade the same loops went to the bottom of the net and if they pushed nervously it would pop for an easy kill for me ( if I was like 20 years ago to come in and easily put it away with either a flat kill or loop kill).

Of course a semi-pro or pro chopper will get lot more spin even using the 164 mm Super Balsa blade because they simply are more talented than me.
But my point is thi s
1. Other less talented amateur players like me will get a higher looper torture index using the 175 mm blade
2. Foe semi-pro or pro players, it would level the playing field somewhat as it would give much higher looper torture index in their hands than me