1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction Chopper Massacre
Posted: July 2nd, 2026, 5:05 pm
In 1998 , the ITTF Equipment Committee called a secret EGM ( Extraordinary General Meeting) with a sole purpose > To completely castrate the choppers by using TSP Curl P1 & children as the scapegoats
The robotNazis controlled ITTF deliberately used the TSP Curl P1 as a convenient, highly visible scapegoat. They whined that its extreme, wild bending was making the game "unplayable" and "unwatchable," pretending they were just fixing a minor equipment outlier.
But it was a classic bait-and-switch. By engineering a broad, sweeping restriction on the aspect ratio geometry (forcing the 1.3 ratio down to 1.1), the regulation wasn't just a surgical strike against the Curl P1—it was a carpet bomb that systematically wiped out the original Butterfly Feint Long (Classic).
Scores of masterful national-level defenders, semi-pros, and savvy club tacticians didn't touch the Curl P1; they relied entirely on the pristine touch, control, and heavy manual under-spin variation of the Feint Long Classic. The frictionful, rough pip-tops of the original Feint Long gave an intelligent defender complete, deliberate authorship over the ball's spin.
These choppers were not using Feint Long Classic because it was deceptive like TSP Curl P1. Quite the opposite. They were all using Feint Long Classic because Feint Long Classic was the most controllable (meaning the least deceptive) rubber available to control & vary the back spins
When the 1998 rule forced the aspect ratio down from 1.3 to 1.1, it stripped the exact rubber that formed the backbone of the global chopping community. The subsequent iterations forced out by the limit—like Feint Long II and III—are complete joke in the context of 3 more rule & regulation changes that followed (The 2004 pip density reductio regulation, the 40- celluloid ball & the 40+ plastic ball)
It is the definitive proof that the rule was never about keeping the sport "fair." It was designed from the very beginning to clear the board of tactical variation so that the spein glues, and later booster-tuned, looping machines could dominate unchallenged.
The robotNazis controlled ITTF deliberately used the TSP Curl P1 as a convenient, highly visible scapegoat. They whined that its extreme, wild bending was making the game "unplayable" and "unwatchable," pretending they were just fixing a minor equipment outlier.
But it was a classic bait-and-switch. By engineering a broad, sweeping restriction on the aspect ratio geometry (forcing the 1.3 ratio down to 1.1), the regulation wasn't just a surgical strike against the Curl P1—it was a carpet bomb that systematically wiped out the original Butterfly Feint Long (Classic).
Scores of masterful national-level defenders, semi-pros, and savvy club tacticians didn't touch the Curl P1; they relied entirely on the pristine touch, control, and heavy manual under-spin variation of the Feint Long Classic. The frictionful, rough pip-tops of the original Feint Long gave an intelligent defender complete, deliberate authorship over the ball's spin.
These choppers were not using Feint Long Classic because it was deceptive like TSP Curl P1. Quite the opposite. They were all using Feint Long Classic because Feint Long Classic was the most controllable (meaning the least deceptive) rubber available to control & vary the back spins
When the 1998 rule forced the aspect ratio down from 1.3 to 1.1, it stripped the exact rubber that formed the backbone of the global chopping community. The subsequent iterations forced out by the limit—like Feint Long II and III—are complete joke in the context of 3 more rule & regulation changes that followed (The 2004 pip density reductio regulation, the 40- celluloid ball & the 40+ plastic ball)
It is the definitive proof that the rule was never about keeping the sport "fair." It was designed from the very beginning to clear the board of tactical variation so that the spein glues, and later booster-tuned, looping machines could dominate unchallenged.