AR
The Short Pips-Long Pips Malapropisms & Reclassifying Pips Types (to expose ITTF fraud)
Detailed Aspect Ratio Comparison & other key calculations for Smash Pips, MediumPips, Low Spin Pips & High Spin Pips (Pre & post 1999 & beyond)
The purpose of this article is to help players (new and old) to gain a better conceptual & behavioral understanding of all pips types (but also involves some basic mathematical explanations, unfortunately)
Please refer to ITTF Tech Leaflet T4 (shown in the bottom of this page) for information on pip dimension limits
The
table below shows some sample calculations based on pre-1999 & post 1998
(current) ITTF specification as well as proposed fair values for a fair & level playing field (and more
importantly to promote spectator presentation with longer rallies instead of 3rd
ball & 5th ball attacks).
The rubber type names used by ITTF in their LARC is a malapropism & is very confusing & ITTF has done this deliberately forever to deceive pips players by preventing them from understanding what exactly ITTF is doing to limits pips over & over with 11 rule & regulation changes since 1983
Rubber types names "in" and "anti" on the LARC are both pips "in" . So the proper name for "in" rubbers is probably High Spin.
The names on LARC are equally confusing for pips rubbers because both out & long are pips out rubbers.
The common name for "out" rubbers is short pips as opposed to long pips/ This is also wrong because the maximum length allowed for both "out" & "long" rubbers is almost same . (It 2.0 mm for both but the short pips maximum that is possible is 1.958 mm which is only 0.042 mm in difference in length allowed).
Another weird thing is that ITTF defines the difference between "out" & "long" rubbers based on the Aspect Ratio of pips . The maximum limit is 0.89 for "out" (or short pips) rubbers & 1.1 for so called "long".
So given that the maximum length allowed for any pips (long or short) is the same 2.0 mm but given that Aspect Ratio is different, the possible difference between these two types is not the Length (as defined incorrectly as short pips & long pips) but it is the width or diameter of the pips . ITTF allows maximum of 2.20 mm for any pip but a maximum of only 1.818 is possible for so called short pips.
So clearly a different naming convention required. The best I can come up with is based on the behavior of the pips as in actual play rather than mathematical value (length of pips).
All pips have blocking as their common characteristic as compared to spinny inverted rubbers. So the best was to differentiate is to use some other behavioral parameter. The so called short pips are actually wider pips as compared to long pips which are narrower because of Aspect Ratio limitations.
The most distinguishing characteristic of so called long pips is back spin.
So it would make sense to call the previously known short pips as wide pips & long pips as spin pips.
However the spin pips on ITTF LARC has been renamed low spin pips because they have been rendered useless by ITTF after 1998 with 9 rule & regulations to limit the usability of pips (since ITTF emphasizes on promoting top spin play and heavily focuses on severely limiting back spin play) .
So in the table below the spin pips are classified as low spin pips if they are on ITTF LARC & high spin pips if they are ITTF unapproved pips (though they are not "illegal" as often referred to as because only boosted rubbers are both unapproved in ITTF per rule 2.4.7 as well as "illegal" under common lae. Therefore no pips are "illegal" under common law)
Medium pip definition will continue to be the same. These are either rubbers with spin pips behaviors but are listed on ITTF LARC as "out" because they have Aspect Ratio of 0.89 or less or they are listed as "long" on ITTF LARC but have some smash pips behavior because their Aspect Ratio exceeds 0.89. These are rubbers suitable for all round play., as opposed to primarily dedicated to flat hitting block & smash style using smash pips or for primarily dedicated chopping or chop-blocking style using spin pips)
Another misunderstanding is about the impact of 8 more rule & regulation changes by the ITTF that followed the Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction Regulation designed to partially or fully effect the pips of all types. The biggest 3 are the 2004 Pip density reduction regulation of 2004 , move to the 40- mm celluloid ball from 38 mm celluloid ball in 2000 and then the move to the 40+ plastic ball in 2014. These 3 changes impact the pips OUT rubber than pips in (or reversed or smooth) rubbers . Why ? Because the ball contact area behavior is lot more significant for pips OUT than pips IN but ITTF has pushed this fraud campaign claiming pips IN & OUT are effected equally. Because the major and dominant factor that determines smooth rubber is the (top) spinny behavior of the top sheet & the ITTF unapproved (per rule 2.4.7) as well as the common law illegal (potentially criminal) boosting or spin gluing of the sponge (which is almost an exclusive domain of inverted rubbers). And of course keep in mind that the pips OUT rubber behavior has also been even more limited DIRECTLY by the Frictionless Pips Ban Regulation of 2008 for pips out blockers who are lot more in numbers of pips players, since the previous regulation has all but exterminated chop defenders on men's side at highest levels (& I am sure ITTF is working on how to exterminate the chopper nuisance on the women's side) LOL
Note :- The 1998 Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction Regulation by the ITTF is the worst & meaningless change in the history of the sport
The calculations were made for the third parameter using minimum or maximum values for other two parameters allowed by ITTF. The three parameters are Pip Height, Pip Diameter & Aspect Ratio , which is Pip height divided by pip diameter
ITTF "regulations" in tech leaflet T4 says the maximum aspect ratio allowed for short pips is 0.89 & width cannot exceed 2.2 mm, this means the length can be upto 1.96 mm. But the ITTF rule 2.4.3 says the "thickness' cannot exceed 2.0 mm . the 2.0 mm is including the base thickness & glue. So from a practical stand point the maximum pip length cannot be more than 1.8 mm if you allow only 0.1 mm each for base & thickness.
However the key here is that this 1.8 mm maximum length applies to both long pips as well as short pips rubbers, because strangely ITTF differentiates long pips from short pips not based on length of the pips but based on just aspect ratio only. That can be termed bizarre because then the short pipe can be just as long as long pips rubbers.
Then what really is the difference between short pips & long pips ? One has to conclude that it has to some other pip design parameters other than ITTF maximum allowed pip height 2.0 mm (pratical 1.8 mm).
So this is why the long pips are "seemingly" "long" compared to short pips because they have lower width compared to short pips.
Another key differentiator is pip flexibility & pip hardness. The long pips are more flexible but short pips are more stiffer in general.
All Curl P1 versions are softer (more deception & lesser control) & all Feint Long versions are little harder (less deception & more control)
Feint Long has a bit more back spin because the aspect ratio is at the limits.
Of course both Feint Long 3 & Curl & all other ITTF LARC rubbers are totally useless for defenders in the 40+ plastic ball era but that is entirely seperate issue that became relevant afterwards starting with 40- celluloid ball of 2000 and 2004 PDD regulation & 40+ plastic ball of 2014
This could also explain the reason why neo short pips can be made to behave just like long pips. Because they obviously can be just as long if you lower the pip width , as long you keep the aspect ratio below 0.89 to qualify it as short pips. This is also why manufacturers can also claim that their revolutionary short pips are great cchopping tools.
Another reason why the difference in behavior of short pips & long pips has become more closer to each other (this is what ITTF wanted, to oppress the choppers) is because the maximum allowed aspect ratio was lowered by ITTF from 1.3 to 1.1 in 1998, which would mean the so called long pips have to more wider to still meet the maximum allowed length of 2.0 mm (remains same) but lowered aspect ratio. So this significantly lowers the back spin production capability of long pips as well as lowering the looper torture index, which again is also what the looper controlled ITTF wanted while lowering the aspect ratio from 1.3 to 1.1 in 1998 in the Durban Aspect Ratio Reduction Regulation Massacre.
Back to Home Page
Comments