Leyland rubber - Yuck!
Matt Cary
I was playing some hardbat a little while ago with John at the SFTTC
with a bat I borrowed from him. It was a lot of fun. I thought his
bats had a really nice feel and could put just enough topspin on a
ball to bring a smash down onto the table. They could reverse a light
topspin just fine. I don't remember what rubber was on the bat.
I just bought a couple of hardbats from Hock and had them put Leyland
rubber on. It doesn't seem to work very well. If there is any
topspin on the ball at all, it isn't reversed and produces a long-pips
style nothing ball. I bought two extra sheets to put on an old Knight
blade and get the same effect? Is this normal for Leyland?
I have ordered 2 sheets of Yasaka A-12 (?) and two sheets of Winning
MP-8 from TTI to try instead. I could use some advice on how to
remove the old Leyland without damaging it. I guess I'm also looking
to get rid of six sheets of Leyland, because it's no fun for me
playing with that stuff.
--
Arkansas reading test:
MR Ducks
MR Not
SAR
CDEDBD feet
LIB
MR Ducks
Waters, Julian
hardbat expert either...
Julian
Johnfrani
>with a bat I borrowed from him. It was a lot of fun. I thought his
>bats had a really nice feel and could put just enough topspin on a
>ball to bring a smash down onto the table. They could reverse a light
>topspin just fine. I don't remember what rubber was on the bat.
That was a lot of fun for me too, Matt. You were chopping and hitting pretty
well. Don't rule-out *all* hard bats. Come back some time, I'm there almost
every Saturday at 1:30pm.
You were using a 15 year old Hock Defensive Blade (3 ply ) with the 15 year
old Green and Red-Orange Leyland rubber. I have bought some Leyland rubber
recently and there is a difference from my old rubber. The new Red-Orange has
pips that have a slightly smaller diameter than the old Red-Orange and they are
flat. The new Blue pips have a rounded conical shape.
I am currently using a Balsa Veneer bat made by CW Smith and Butterfly
Orothodox.
John from San Francisco TTC
Matt Cary
>That was a lot of fun for me too, Matt. You were chopping and hitting pretty
>well. Don't rule-out *all* hard bats. Come back some time, I'm there almost
>every Saturday at 1:30pm.
> You were using a 15 year old Hock Defensive Blade (3 ply ) with the 15 year
>old Green and Red-Orange Leyland rubber. I have bought some Leyland rubber
>recently and there is a difference from my old rubber. The new Red-Orange has
>pips that have a slightly smaller diameter than the old Red-Orange and they are
>flat. The new Blue pips have a rounded conical shape.
>
>I am currently using a Balsa Veneer bat made by CW Smith and Butterfly
>Orothodox.
I'm not ruling out all hardbats, since I just ordered 4 sheets of
hartbat rubber. I've just seen people post here about wishing they
could standardize on Leyland rubber, and considering the way it plays
(very spinless), that wouldn't be a good idea, IMO.
It would be great if I could get to SFTTC more often on Saturdays, but
it's something that only works out sporadically.
--
"Between San Francisco and Los Angeles I was able to visit seven wax
versions of Leonardo's "Last Supper". Umberto Eco, _Travels in
Hyperreality_
Scott Gordon
: I just bought a couple of hardbats from Hock and had them put Leyland
: rubber on. It doesn't seem to work very well. If there is any
: topspin on the ball at all, it isn't reversed and produces a long-pips
: style nothing ball. I bought two extra sheets to put on an old Knight
: blade and get the same effect? Is this normal for Leyland?
Your question raises several issues, and requires a somewhat lengthy
answer. So here goes....
"Leyland-yuck!".... think for a minute. Many of the great world
champions of our sport used Leyland. Barna, Vana, Bergmann, Miles,
Sido, etc. all used Leyland. If it's so yucky, why would they use it?
How could they be so great as to entertain millions of people the world
over, using yucky equipment?
You mention Leyland's inability to "reverse spin". Were you playing
against another player who was using Leyland? Because if you were, their
ability to *impart* spin would have similarly been reduced, and it may have
then been possible to more easily reverse the spin. If they weren't using
Leyland, well then it wasn't a level playing field.
Further, consider a world in which everyone had rubber such as Leyland that
had minimal capacity to "reverse spin". In such a world, a topspin shot
would most easily be produced in response to a backspin, because the spin
would not have to be reversed. Similarly, chop would most easily be
produced in response to a topspin, for the same reasons. Such basics
run counter to how most of us learn today, in the age of spinny rubber,
wherein we learn that it is easier to topspin against topspin, and chop
against chop. It is a backwards world to us.
And yet, that is exactly what is described in most older (say, pre-1950)
books on table tennis. Beginners were taught to practice topspin against
light chop. Watch the Legends tape, and you don't see a lot of counter-
topspin rallies, it's mostly topspin vs chop, and a fight for the offense.
Now fast-forward to today, and we encounter today's long-standing debate.
Are today's top hardbat players really playing classical table tennis?
Are the topspin rallies seen between Ty Hoff, Lily Yip, Ashu Jain, John
Tannehill and others the result of decades of technique evolution? or is
it because they have access to much spinnier rubber ... rubber capable of
reversing spin?
A sizable segment of the hardbat community believes the latter, and not
without some evidence. Consider the Reisman-Butler match (available
on tape from USATT). That is a fine example of the classical game, with
very few counter topspin rallies... when Marty was hitting, Jimmy was
chopping, and vice-versa. They were both using Leyland rubber! Jimmy
had to adapt and play the classical game, and he did so splendidly.
Some hardbat players argue that to disallow modern hard-rubbers would
paralyze further the hardbat player when playing against sponge. While
this is agreed, the classicists then argue that this is a different issue;
that if there is to be a classical game at all anywhere, then it should
be pure and not turn into another copy of the sponge game. Why make a
game that is both a weak version of the sponge game and an unrecognizable
version of the classical game? the argument goes.
There is a contingent within the hardbat community that claims that there
is no difference, and that technique has simply evolved. I would love to
see a Yip-Hoff match played with Leyland rubber, to see for myself whether
a metamorphosis into a more classical game would occur... because I
myself am curious as to the answer to this question. Butler's match
against Reisman is powerful evidence that rubber matters.
There is also the issue of complicating the game for newcomers.
Is it simpler to say: "we all use this rubber"? or would that
turn people off? These are all questions that require considered
thought, not knee-jerk reactions like (no offense intended) "leyland-yuck!".
What paralizes us currently is the inavailability of Leyland-like rubber.
We cannot seriously consider standardizing to a rubber that is not
being produced, and for which only a relatively small stockpile of
withering rubber is available. A few companies have expressed interest
in recreating the Leyland rubber, if standardization was possible.
Whether production of such rubber would lead to standardization or not,
is not certain. I would like to see some of the better players play
some serious matches with Leyland rubber, so that we can better assess
its prerequisite to recreating the classical game. I suspect that,
armed only with Leyland, many of their games will take a decidedly
classical turn, as did Jimmy's. Maybe it won't. Hopefully, players
on both sides of the debate can try, at this early juncture, to set
aside their personal interests in pursuit of what is best for the game
of Classical Table Tennis, whatever that may be.
The response "Leyland-Yuck!" is understandable, coming from anyone versed
in the sponge game. But before forming such a quick conclusion, try
playing for a while Leyland versus Leyland. Then decide if it is fun,
in a different way. Whichever game you prefer, even if you have no interest
in playing the classical game, ask the question, is the classical game of
less spin and its attendent unique pleasures worth offering?
Many of us think it is. The only question is, how best to do it?
Scott
Berndt Mann
counterloop, Leyland to Leyland but counters and loops require more
body, more of a hard rub than a brushing action and a flatter
trajectory.
When I was playing "classic" hardbat 35 years ago, I copied my forehand
after Reisman, backhand after what I thought was Barna's, footwork
after Danny Vegh, and chop after Miles. From the mid-'70s to the early
'90s I played very little. Since 1991 I've been to several clinics to
try to learn and understand the modern game. Thus my hard rubber
topspinning technique has been to some extent sponge corrupted, but
this has made it somewhat easier for me to topspin topspins with a
hardbat than it might be had I retained my "classic" hardbat technique.
I miss it though; I looked a lot prettier back then. (IMHO, so did the
game in general).
TSP Miracle, Juic Pips Ace (large pips), Winning NP-8 and Yasaka Cobalt
seem to me to be the "spinniest" modern hard rubbers, Yasaka A-1-2,
Friendship 799 and Butterfly Orthodox somewhat in between, and Andro
Classic and the discontinued Barna Personal the closest to Leyland in
playing characteristics.
Berndt the lugubrious Leyland looper
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Scott L. Burson
>
> "Leyland-yuck!".... think for a minute. Many of the great world
> champions of our sport used Leyland. Barna, Vana, Bergmann, Miles,
> Sido, etc. all used Leyland. If it's so yucky, why would they use it?
> How could they be so great as to entertain millions of people the world
> over, using yucky equipment?
> What paralyzes us currently is the inavailability of Leyland-like rubber.
> We cannot seriously consider standardizing to a rubber that is not
> being produced, and for which only a relatively small stockpile of
> withering rubber is available.
Maybe that's part of the problem. Rubber does oxidize, after all. How old is
this stuff by now?
> Some hardbat players argue that to disallow modern hard-rubbers would
> paralyze further the hardbat player when playing against sponge. While
> this is agreed, the classicists then argue that this is a different issue;
> that if there is to be a classical game at all anywhere, then it should
> be pure and not turn into another copy of the sponge game. Why make a
> game that is both a weak version of the sponge game and an unrecognizable
> version of the classical game? the argument goes.
Is the only purpose here to turn back the clock? I thought people were playing
hardbat because they find the game more enjoyable than the sponge game. If
that's so, then the right question is, do we collectively enjoy the game more or
less when we play with modern hard rubbers vs. Leyland? While I appreciate that
that's not an easy question to answer, it's certainly possible that the
conclusion could be that the slight additional spin capability of modern hard
rubbers adds new dimensions to the hardbat game without significantly
compromising the consistency and offense/defense balance that make the game so
attractive in the first place.
Since I'm not currently playing hardbat I can't speak from experience, but I can
offer that as a sponge player I will find hardbat more attractive if the game is
allowed to evolve, albeit on its own terms and under its own logic, than if the
entire purpose is historical re-creation, which doesn't interest me per se. So
I think that to attract the most people, you should focus on what makes the game
enjoyable now, and not limit yourselves to exact reconstruction of the game as
it was 40 years ago.
-- Scott
Iskandar Taib
Scott Gordon <sgo...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Matt Cary (matt...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: I just bought a couple of hardbats from Hock and had them put Leyland
>: rubber on. It doesn't seem to work very well. If there is any
>: topspin on the ball at all, it isn't reversed and produces a long-pips
>: style nothing ball. I bought two extra sheets to put on an old Knight
>: blade and get the same effect? Is this normal for Leyland?
>
>Your question raises several issues, and requires a somewhat lengthy
>answer. So here goes....
>
>"Leyland-yuck!".... think for a minute. Many of the great world
>champions of our sport used Leyland. Barna, Vana, Bergmann, Miles,
>Sido, etc. all used Leyland. If it's so yucky, why would they use it?
>How could they be so great as to entertain millions of people the world
>over, using yucky equipment?
Well, perhaps because it was the best available at the time. Perhaps
all the other pimpled rubber was similar to it.
>You mention Leyland's inability to "reverse spin". Were you playing
>against another player who was using Leyland? Because if you were, their
>ability to *impart* spin would have similarly been reduced, and it may have
>then been possible to more easily reverse the spin. If they weren't using
>Leyland, well then it wasn't a level playing field.
>Further, consider a world in which everyone had rubber such as Leyland that
>had minimal capacity to "reverse spin". In such a world, a topspin shot
>would most easily be produced in response to a backspin, because the spin
>would not have to be reversed. Similarly, chop would most easily be
>produced in response to a topspin, for the same reasons. Such basics
>run counter to how most of us learn today, in the age of spinny rubber,
>wherein we learn that it is easier to topspin against topspin, and chop
>against chop. It is a backwards world to us.
>And yet, that is exactly what is described in most older (say, pre-1950)
>books on table tennis. Beginners were taught to practice topspin against
>light chop. Watch the Legends tape, and you don't see a lot of counter-
>topspin rallies, it's mostly topspin vs chop, and a fight for the offense.
Yeah, I remember your mentioning that it was considered "dangerous" to
counter topspin with topspin, but "chiseling" (backspin against
backspin) seemed to be OK..
>Now fast-forward to today, and we encounter today's long-standing debate.
>Are today's top hardbat players really playing classical table tennis?
>Are the topspin rallies seen between Ty Hoff, Lily Yip, Ashu Jain, John
>Tannehill and others the result of decades of technique evolution? or is
>it because they have access to much spinnier rubber ... rubber capable of
>reversing spin?
Something I'd like to know - what was the Asian scene like back then?
I assume the Japanese (and perhaps the Chinese) played table tennis
during the hardbat era, and a goodly number of those were penhold
attackers (have you ever met a penhold chopper?)
>A sizable segment of the hardbat community believes the latter, and not
>without some evidence. Consider the Reisman-Butler match (available
>on tape from USATT). That is a fine example of the classical game, with
>very few counter topspin rallies... when Marty was hitting, Jimmy was
>chopping, and vice-versa. They were both using Leyland rubber! Jimmy
>had to adapt and play the classical game, and he did so splendidly.
Well, if you want to define "classical hardbat" as predominantly drive
vs. chop, I don't know if I'd find it that interesting game after
game. It _seems_ interesting now, because it is a relative
rarity. Remember why the expedite rule exists - that was the heyday of
defence, when the defensive player had the upper hand due to the
equipment. In Denis Neale's book, I found another side to the
oft-mentioned common lament among existing players - the demise of
defence. In the words of Neale, though, that was the day of the
"wrestling match" - what happened when one of the many defensive
players had to play against another one of the many defensive
players. No, you didn't end up with a chiseling match, but you'd have
two relatively weak attacks vs. two relatively strong defenses. Thus
the wrestling match (in the old days before fake "Pro Wrestling" came
into vogue, real "Scientific Wrestling" matches would supposedly last
for hours before one of the two would concede..), where the expedite
rule came into play. Satoh showed up, and for better or for worse,
poked numerous holes in these seemingly impenetrable walls, and ended
forever the era of the boring wrestling match.
>Some hardbat players argue that to disallow modern hard-rubbers would
>paralyze further the hardbat player when playing against sponge. While
>this is agreed, the classicists then argue that this is a different issue;
>that if there is to be a classical game at all anywhere, then it should
>be pure and not turn into another copy of the sponge game. Why make a
>game that is both a weak version of the sponge game and an unrecognizable
>version of the classical game? the argument goes.
It doesn't necessarily follow that "non-classic" hardbat need
necessarily be a "copy of the sponge game". Spin is a lot less, speed
is a lot less, so defensive play would be relatively more common than
in the Sponge game.
>There is a contingent within the hardbat community that claims that there
>is no difference, and that technique has simply evolved. I would love to
>see a Yip-Hoff match played with Leyland rubber, to see for myself whether
>a metamorphosis into a more classical game would occur... because I
>myself am curious as to the answer to this question. Butler's match
>against Reisman is powerful evidence that rubber matters.
>
>There is also the issue of complicating the game for newcomers.
>Is it simpler to say: "we all use this rubber"? or would that
>turn people off? These are all questions that require considered
>thought, not knee-jerk reactions like (no offense intended) "leyland-yuck!".
I think an impediment to participation would be that sponge players
would find that rubber that can't reverse spin is "strange". Sort of
like playing with long pips - it feels like the weirdest stuff. Block
topspin, and the ball sails off into the blue. Classic hardbat strokes
are weird, too - the classic topspin drive is concave, and sometimes
the blade is actually open.
>What paralizes us currently is the inavailability of Leyland-like rubber.
>We cannot seriously consider standardizing to a rubber that is not
>being produced, and for which only a relatively small stockpile of
>withering rubber is available. A few companies have expressed interest
>in recreating the Leyland rubber, if standardization was possible.
How exactly was the current black Leyland different compared to the
old stuff? Was is spinnier? How does current-day dimestore hard rubber
(actually, make that "Walmart") compare with Leyland? What about
Butterfly Orthodox, and Yasaka A-12? Both are preportedly Pre-Satoh -
the stuff the Japanese used back in the "Classic era".
I'm actually very interested in the 1952-1958 era. Richard Petty has
written me concerning the Armstrong bare sponge that was available at
the time - it was available in several thicknesses, but the blades
they came on were not very good. People would buy the rackets, remove
the sponge, and put the sponge on Hocks.
There is an interesting article on Hock on the USATT website - it
answers a lot about the way he made rackets - he didn't laminate his
own wood. He bought sheets of plywood from a company that made it,
locally, and it came in sheets large enough to make 12 blades. His
original main concern was that the wood not warp, it seems. The
plywood was made to his specs - the facing sheets would be from
successive leaves of a flitch (and therefore, successive layers of the
tree).
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: nt...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Home page: http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/iskandar/isk2.html
bernd...@my-deja.com
"Scott L. Burson" <SBu...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> Scott Gordon wrote:
> >
> > "Leyland-yuck!".... think for a minute. Many of the great world
> > champions of our sport used Leyland. Barna, Vana, Bergmann, Miles,
> > Sido, etc. all used Leyland. If it's so yucky, why would they use
it?
> > How could they be so great as to entertain millions of people the
world
> > over, using yucky equipment?
> > What paralyzes us currently is the inavailability of Leyland-like
rubber.
> > We cannot seriously consider standardizing to a rubber that is not
> > being produced, and for which only a relatively small stockpile of
> > withering rubber is available.
>
How old is
> this stuff by now?
>
would
> > paralyze further the hardbat player when playing against sponge.
While
> > this is agreed, the classicists then argue that this is a different
issue;
> > that if there is to be a classical game at all anywhere, then it
should
> > be pure and not turn into another copy of the sponge game. Why
make a
> > game that is both a weak version of the sponge game and an
unrecognizable
> > version of the classical game? the argument goes.
>
Dear Scott (Burson that is),
This is a thoughtful post with a reasonable point of view. Those of us
who are members of the hard rubber rules and equipment committee are
still wrestling with the question of whether or not and to what extent
we should or can recreate hard rubber table tennis in 2000 as it was
played in, say, 1950.
Berndt Mann
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Matt Cary
wrote:
>Matt Cary (matt...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: I just bought a couple of hardbats from Hock and had them put Leyland
>: rubber on. It doesn't seem to work very well. If there is any
>: topspin on the ball at all, it isn't reversed and produces a long-pips
>: style nothing ball. I bought two extra sheets to put on an old Knight
>: blade and get the same effect? Is this normal for Leyland?
>You mention Leyland's inability to "reverse spin". Were you playing
>against another player who was using Leyland? Because if you were, their
>ability to *impart* spin would have similarly been reduced, and it may have
>then been possible to more easily reverse the spin. If they weren't using
>Leyland, well then it wasn't a level playing field.
If you threw a ball at the table so it bounced on both sides of the
table like a serve, it would pick up some topspin from the two
bounces. The Leyland I am using is not able to reverse this level of
spin. Any downward curve on an attempt to hit a topspin against a
nothing-ball is imperceptible. This seems inadequate. Perhaps these
sheets are bad. I've never used Leyland before, so I don't know if
this is how it is supposed to react.
Before responding, I played again today with the hardbat against my
practice partner, rated 1550. First, we played hardbat vs. hardbat
(Hock/Leyland) and had fun, but both felt the Leyland was simply too
non-spinny.
Then he used his sponge bat against my hardbat and I beat him 2 of 3.
I admit that he probably lost the third game because he won the second
so easily (at 12) that he got overconfident and then went tight when
it was close at the end. Basically, though, I felt that I had to wait
until he did a medium push before I could attack. A nothing push
wasn't attackable. I enjoy playing the hardbat, but the Leyland just
feels too much too me like playing with a naked blade.
It may well be that I don't know what-the-heck I'm doing, but the
other hardbats I've used felt so natural to use after a little
practice. This one never gets comfortable.
>Further, consider a world in which everyone had rubber such as Leyland that
>had minimal capacity to "reverse spin". In such a world, a topspin shot
>would most easily be produced in response to a backspin, because the spin
>would not have to be reversed. Similarly, chop would most easily be
>produced in response to a topspin, for the same reasons. Such basics
>run counter to how most of us learn today, in the age of spinny rubber,
>wherein we learn that it is easier to topspin against topspin, and chop
>against chop. It is a backwards world to us.
Are there ever supposed to be counter-smashing rallies? Or do you
always have to chop a smash?
>And yet, that is exactly what is described in most older (say, pre-1950)
>books on table tennis. Beginners were taught to practice topspin against
>light chop. Watch the Legends tape, and you don't see a lot of counter-
>topspin rallies, it's mostly topspin vs chop, and a fight for the offense.
I don't get it. How can there be a fight for the offense if the
server only has to serve a topspin and it can't be hit back, but has
to be pushed/chopped?
>There is a contingent within the hardbat community that claims that there
>is no difference, and that technique has simply evolved. I would love to
>see a Yip-Hoff match played with Leyland rubber, to see for myself whether
>a metamorphosis into a more classical game would occur... because I
>myself am curious as to the answer to this question. Butler's match
>against Reisman is powerful evidence that rubber matters.
I'll have to try the other rubber I got and see how it compares to the
Leyland.
>There is also the issue of complicating the game for newcomers.
>Is it simpler to say: "we all use this rubber"? or would that
>turn people off? These are all questions that require considered
>thought, not knee-jerk reactions like (no offense intended) "leyland-yuck!".
I don't think my reaction is knee-jerk. It's my opinion. For me it
is more interesting if a light topspin can be countered by either a
returning light topspin or a chop. In the modern game, chopping
doesn't work well as an option because the next shot will be
overpowering. In the game that you like, topspin is apparently not an
option. It is not very interesting to me if the server can force you
to push or chop return every serve simply by hitting the serve deep
with light topspin. Am I simply missing some techniques?
John Grinnell
Good post...good questions! Before I get into the "what ought to be
possible" mode, let me make sure I really understand what you're asking,
and verify the conditions:
You say, later in the post, "...but the other hardbats I've used felt
so natural to use after a little practice.", whereas both
(1) a new 3-ply Hock blade with Leyland and
(2) an old Knight blade with the two extra sheets of Leyland
produce almost no spin-reversal when counter-driving against topspin.
So the real question is: "Is Leyland significantly less able to
produce spin than other short-pips no-sponge coverings?" when used on
the same blade, etc...
One way to check this out would be to remove the Leyland from one side
of the blade, and replace it with a sheet of approved/suggested
(Scott G:...I've trashed my hard-drive, and no longer have the list of
suggested rubbers from the Equipment Committee's investigations...can
you suggest a rubber with dimensional characteristics similar to Old
Leyland?)
rubber. Having done this, it should be easy for you to determine if
there is a difference.
From personal experience, I can attest that it is far easier to induce
spin with sponge/inverted (in my case, Sriver FX) than Leyland...as I
removed the Leyland from my antique 60's-era Hock and put on some
sponge. Suddenly, the same strokes produced far more spin!
Unfortunately, the converse was true, as well...I was affected by the
ball's spin far more, as well...so eventually, I put the Leyland back on
the blade,and stuck to HardBat.
But, my point is that I *could* return both hi-spin and no-spin balls
with the Hock/Leyland combination...I just had to work "harder" to apply
my own spin.
Admitedly, counter-driving "on the rise" is very difficult...and the
result is, at best, a flat-hit counter. Counter-driving from further
back becomes relatively simple...open the blade a little, start lower,
and hit the ball on the decent, after the top of the bounce. However,
if you're expecting to produce a ball which "hops" after it bounces,
you'll seldom see that result. I suspect that the inability to produce
a "sponge-type" loop is the basis for your assertion that Leyland can't
reverse topspin.
My personal, subjective observation is that hitting late, and into
topspin, feels "heavier"...you have to let the ball "dig in" to the
blade.
Finally...just to be sure...when you say, "Other hardbats I've used
feel natural...", do you mean that you *can* reverse topspin with them,
but *not* with your new Hock/Leyland?
John the Elder
Matt Cary wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 18:00:04 GMT, sgo...@sonic.net (Scott Gordon)
> wrote:
>
> >Matt Cary (matt...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> >: I just bought a couple of hardbats from Hock and had them put Leyland
> >: rubber on. It doesn't seem to work very well. If there is any
> >: topspin on the ball at all, it isn't reversed and produces a long-pips
> >: style nothing ball. I bought two extra sheets to put on an old Knight
> >: blade and get the same effect? Is this normal for Leyland?
>
> <snip> but the Leyland just
Scott L. Burson
>
> Admitedly, counter-driving "on the rise" is very difficult...and the
> result is, at best, a flat-hit counter. Counter-driving from further
> back becomes relatively simple...open the blade a little, start lower,
> and hit the ball on the decent, after the top of the bounce. However,
> if you're expecting to produce a ball which "hops" after it bounces,
> you'll seldom see that result. I suspect that the inability to produce
> a "sponge-type" loop is the basis for your assertion that Leyland can't
> reverse topspin.
All this is interesting in light of earlier mentions that long pips are not
considered acceptable as a hardbat surface. From this description, the behavior
of Leyland doesn't sound that different from that of some medium-long pips I've
tried (though I haven't tried them without sponge). What I recall Scott saying
at the time was that long pips were considered to distort the game.
This makes me wonder whether Leyland is really the ideal hardbat surface.
-- Scott
Scott L. Burson
>
> It's my understanding that the Classic HardBat Table Tennis
> Association
> is attempting to foster table tennis played in the style of the
> "Classic" era, generally from the late 1940's through the early-mid
> 1950's.
Is that the sole definition of its mission? This goes back to what I was saying
before. Are you just trying to turn back the clock, or are you open to at least
the possibility that some third kind of equipment, not identical to that of the
classic era and certainly quite different from modern sponge rackets, might
generate a style of game that is more varied and enjoyable than either the
classic game or the sponge game?
To put it another way, which is more important: reproducing the exact form of
the classic game, or recovering the essence of what made it more satisfying (to
some) than the modern game?
It is naturally the conservative reaction to resist any changes to the form out
of fear of losing the essence. (Wow -- that's the best definition of
conservatism I've ever heard. I'm so smart :-) There is much to be said for
this, and I wouldn't advocate altering the form (or the equipment that leads to
it) without due deliberation for just this reason. As Scott said, if all you
wound up with was a "weak" version of the sponge game, what would be the point?
-- There might be a good answer to that question, though, if rallies remain
longer and more varied than with sponge.
Anyway, all I'm trying to do here is to play Devil's advocate to some extent, in
the hope of shedding some light on questions I'm sure the hardbat community is
already wrestling with. I have my own opinion on these questions, but it
doesn't count for much since I'm not yet a convert. As I suggested before,
though, the goal of exactly duplicating the classic game and that of attracting
a lot of converts from sponge may be a little bit at odds with each other.
Matt's reaction to the Leyland rubber supports this.
> The point is...there is nothing "random" about playing with Leyland.
> Execute the same stroke, the same way, against the same incoming ball,
> and you get the same result. If long-pips produces erratic results, then
> *that's* why it's not included within the "approved" list.
Okay. I didn't realize that inconsistency of behavior was the disqualifying
factor. None of the long pips I have tried have seemed erratic to me, but
they've all been on the medium side of long (none of them fell on the wrong side
of the new aspect ratio rule, for instance).
Still, it's my understanding that even medium pips have been rejected by the
equipment committee. And it sounds like Leyland's behavior is not that
different from that of some modern medium pips -- which I certainly wouldn't
call erratic.
-- Scott
Berndt Mann
<jgri...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote: (excerpted)
> It's unfortunate that the Classic Resurgence has been so long
> delayed...there are so few examples of good Clasic technique still
> playing...when Marty Reisman quits, we'll all have to re-invent the
> wheel! I wonder if there are any more active players who still have
> strokes, tactics, and techniques, "uncontaminated" by playing with
> sponge...
> John the Elder
This observation is especially poignant to me, who learned the classic
game particularly from Danny Vegh as teacher and coach and from
watching good classic players from Cleveland like John Lehman and Sandy
Potiker. In the early '60s I was fortunate enough to have seen Marty,
Dick Miles, Jimmy McClure, Sol Schiff, Richard Hicks, Leah Neuberger,
Danny Vegh and Emory Lippai (among others) play classically with their
own distinctive and graceful styles.
My own decent classic game (attack after Reisman, defense after Miles,
and footwork by Vegh) lies buried somewhere in motor memory, not having
been used as such for lo these three decades. After watching a
videotape of Marty and Steve Berger playing one another at the
Westside? Champions? club in New York City I think to myself how
musical and beautiful the classic style is! and how fortunate I am to
be able to still see and analyze it from one of its greatest masters
and one of its best current practitioners keeping alive the style and
tradition of Miles.
I hope that Marty and Steve will collaborate on a videotape of the
strokes and techniques of classical table tennis so that those who
can't learn the game from them personally can try to emulate in their
own way how to play classically and more pure classical players will be
able to carry on the classical tradition.
To answer your question, John, born again hardbat men John Tannehill,
Steve Berger and Scott Gordon have readapted their techniques to
classical table tennis beautifully. Derek May, although not a fulltime
hardbat player, has some Bergmannesque tendencies in his retrieving
long distance chops.
Ralph Stadelman, Houshang Bozorgzadeh, Tim Boggan and Harry Deschamps
also still exemplify the classical approach nicely.
Berndt the wistful
John Grinnell
It's my understanding that the Classic HardBat Table Tennis Association
is attempting to foster table tennis played in the style of the
"Classic" era, generally from the late 1940's through the early-mid
1950's. During that period, in the United States at least,
(english/imported) Leyland rubber was the almost exclusive choice.
If one agrees that equipment choice (both yours any your opponent's)
influences style of play, then I assert, (at the risk of uttering a
tautology) that Classic Table Tennis is the style of play which results
from playing with an all-wood blade and Leyland rubber.
As surfaces have evolved from the first crude sponge of the mid-fifties
to today's high-tech miracles, so have both strokes and tactics. Things
which were impossible or ineffective earlier, are not only possible
today, but in many cases have become the predominant weapons.
Is a loop possible with HardBat/Leyland? It can be done, but it's a
relatively low-rpm spin on am arching shot. Not impossible to counter
with a flat kill, as the ball bounces (relative to a sponge/inverted
loop) higher, and doesn't "hop" anywhere near as much. In that case, it
*can* be hit on the rise, despite what I said earlier. Consequently,
few Classic-era players (Harry Hershkowitz comes to mind as an
exepception) hit looping forehands. The top-spin served to pull the
ball down to the table, not to make it dive to the opponent's knees
after it bounced.
What was called "chiselling" or "pushing" was a relatively heavy
back-spin shot executed, against back-spin, at or over the table. I
presume it's still called a "push". However, since the amount of spin
which can be produced with sponge/inverted far exceeds the amount
producable by HardBat/Leyland, variations in spin were less
pronounced...you were unlikely to get a popped-up return by
surreptitiously pushing a "nothing ball", nor were you likely to get
your opponent to bury the ball in the net by deceptively loading up with
chop on the push.
Is counter-driving possible with Leyland? Certainly...does anyone
remember John Reed? John had a knee which wouldn't bend...or an
artificial leg, for all I know...and consistently made forehand topspin
returns while back from the table, against top-spin drives.
If you intend to play HardBat, it will be necessary to "devolve" some
of your modern sponge strokes and techniques...either because they don't
produce the expected results or because they're ineffective. It will be
necessary to sieze upon the strengths of the equipment...it's
unfortunate that the Classic Resurgence has been so long delayed...there
are so few examples of good Clasic technique still playing...when Marty
Reisman quits, we'll all have to re-invent the wheel! I wonder if there
are any more active players who still have strokes, tactics, and
techniques, "uncontaminated" by playing with sponge...
The point is...there is nothing "random" about playing with Leyland.
Execute the same stroke, the same way, against the same incoming ball,
and you get the same result. If long-pips produces erratic results, then
*that's* why it's not included within the "approved" list.
John the Elder
John Grinnell
equivocal! I should have said, "IT's my HOPE..." not "my
understanding"....I am not (in this message, anyway) the official
spokesman for Classic HardBat...
"Scott L. Burson" wrote:
>
> John Grinnell wrote:
> >
> > It's my understanding that the Classic HardBat Table Tennis Association
> > is attempting to foster table tennis played in the style of the
> > "Classic" era, generally from the late 1940's through the early-mid
> > 1950's.
>
> Is that the sole definition of its mission? This goes back to what I was saying
> before. Are you just trying to turn back the clock, or are you open to at least
> the possibility that some third kind of equipment, not identical to that of the
> classic era and certainly quite different from modern sponge rackets, might
> generate a style of game that is more varied and enjoyable than either the
> classic game or the sponge game?
>
> To put it another way, which is more important: reproducing the exact form of
> the classic game, or recovering the essence of what made it more satisfying (to
> some) than the modern game?
>
I can, however, speak on *my* intention, during the time I chaired the
Equipment Comittee...and what my understanding of the rationale was, and
what our goals were:
From the initial General Membership Meeting, there was consensus that:
(1) Table Tennis had become less enjoyable for many players, and less
attractive and interesting to the casual spectator;
(2) the balance between offense and defense had shifted too far toward
favoring offensive play;
(3) the proliferation and use of the many variants of of highly
effective, high-tech, special-purpose surfaces was the cause;
the game had passed the point of *optimal* speed, spin and deception.
During the discussions we recognized that each improvement in surface
efficiency begat not only changes in tactics and techniques to take
advantage of the new equipment's potential, but additionally, more new
surfaces, to counter the latest "improvement". Table Tennis was
continuously evolving and re-inventing itself, and was on the path to
becoming unrecognizable.
The first "thick" sponge was countered first by a call for a ban, and
eventually by a ruling that the surface must include "pimples"...the
pimples requirement produced "yeah, but you didn't say pips-out", and
inverted-sponge resulted.
The ability to produce excessive spin resulted in the introduction of
anti- and long pips...the first to nullify the effect, and the latter to
turn the excessive spin back on its orginator. To overcome the
shortcomings of those two surfaces, twiddling came into use. Twiddling,
in turn, called forth the two-color rule. Each improvement in surface
efficiency evoked a response in the form of a new surface, and a change
in strokes and tactics and/or a new restrictive rule. The latest is the
aspect-ratio ruling.
In the future we may well see the 40 mm ball, and an increase in net
height has been discussed. The proposed rule changes are admittedly
(see ITTF statement about "excessive spin and speed") an admission that
the game has drifted too far from its roots.
You said:
> "It is naturally the conservative reaction to resist any changes to the form out
> of fear of losing the essence. (Wow -- that's the best definition of
> conservatism I've ever heard. I'm so smart :-) There is much to be said for
> this, and I wouldn't advocate altering the form (or the equipment that leads to
> it) without due deliberation for just this reason."
and I couldn't agree more. HardBat is an attempt to recapture the
essence of Table Tennis, by eliminating the basis of the incremental
changes which have caused the game to drift so far. Remove the enabling
factor (exotic surfaces), and the game will devolve back to its
essence. Some facets of the modern game will remain...assuming that
players, having seen that they were possible and effective with exotic
surfaces, will figure out how to implement them with hard rubber...and
some will disappear, because Classic surfaces will not support their
employment.
To be honest, I don't know what the result of returning equipment to
Classic Era standards will be...I would expect that we'll see a somewhat
different game than 50's style, as the possibilities for new strokes and
tactics have been illustrated by sponge play...but I also firmly believe
we'll see a more spectator-friendly and player-enjoyable Table Tennis
than we have now.
> <snip> As Scott said, if all you
> wound up with was a "weak" version of the sponge game, what would be the point?
> -- There might be a good answer to that question, though, if rallies remain
> longer and more varied than with sponge.
>
> Anyway, all I'm trying to do here is to play Devil's advocate to some extent, in
> the hope of shedding some light on questions I'm sure the hardbat community is
> already wrestling with. I have my own opinion on these questions, but it
> doesn't count for much since I'm not yet a convert. As I suggested before,
> though, the goal of exactly duplicating the classic game and that of attracting
> a lot of converts from sponge may be a little bit at odds with each other.
> Matt's reaction to the Leyland rubber supports this.
>
> -- Scott
You don't have to be a "convert" to have and offer an opinion...all
reasoned input is welcome. This is an opportunity to get in on the
ground floor of, and influence, a movement which, we hope, will become
popular enough to reverse the direction the game has taken for the past
forty years...to return to a kinder, gentler and more inclusive Table
Tennis.
By the way...there's nothing which says that HardBat is an all or
nothing idea...plenty of the Classic Table Tennis supporters, advocates
and enthusiasts play both the modern and Classic game...we just think
that over time, as more folks give it a try, Classic Table Tennis will
become a popular alternative to sponge. If you followed the nightly
reports last week, they certainly seemed to prove that HardBat can be an
engrossing event to watch!
John the Elder (Speaking ONLY for himself...and I am unanimous in that!)
Scott Gordon
as if a bunch of misfits like us can actually AGREE on anything! :)
But we actually did lay out a pretty specific list of goals when we
codified our first cut of the rules. Simply go to www.hardbat.com,
press the link that leads to the rules, and the list of goals we came
up with are there.
Scott
p.s.- I'd be answering more, but I've managed to catch a nasty flu and
somehow I've got to get my grades submitted.
Matt Cary
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:04:59 GMT, in rec.sport.table-tennis you wrote:
> Good post...good questions! Before I get into the "what ought to be
>possible" mode, let me make sure I really understand what you're asking,
>and verify the conditions:
>
> You say, later in the post, "...but the other hardbats I've used felt
>so natural to use after a little practice.", whereas both
> (1) a new 3-ply Hock blade with Leyland and
> (2) an old Knight blade with the two extra sheets of Leyland
>produce almost no spin-reversal when counter-driving against topspin.
To quote from an earlier post from John...@aol.com
>> You were using a 15 year old Hock Defensive Blade (3 ply ) with the 15 year
>>old Green and Red-Orange Leyland rubber. I have bought some Leyland rubber
>>recently and there is a difference from my old rubber. The new Red-Orange has
>>pips that have a slightly smaller diameter than the old Red-Orange and they are
>>flat. The new Blue pips have a rounded conical shape.
>>I am currently using a Balsa Veneer bat made by CW Smith and Butterfly
>>Orothodox.
I used both of the above blades. I've had other hardbats in hand, but
don't know what they were. The Butterfly Orthodox felt better than
the old Leyland, but the old Leyland felt better than my new Leyland.
I didn't remember that one of John's rubbers was Leyland until he
responded.
> So the real question is: "Is Leyland significantly less able to
>produce spin than other short-pips no-sponge coverings?" when used on
>the same blade, etc...
I will be testing this. I have four knight blades and three different
kinds of hardbat rubber: Leyland, Yasaka A-12 and Winning MP-8. But
another question is: "Do the sheets of Leyland currently available
for purchase produce as much spin as those used in the Classic era"?
> Admitedly, counter-driving "on the rise" is very difficult...and the
>result is, at best, a flat-hit counter. Counter-driving from further
>back becomes relatively simple...open the blade a little, start lower,
>and hit the ball on the decent, after the top of the bounce. However,
>if you're expecting to produce a ball which "hops" after it bounces,
>you'll seldom see that result. I suspect that the inability to produce
>a "sponge-type" loop is the basis for your assertion that Leyland can't
>reverse topspin.
I don't want a hop, just a small dip in the trajectory so the ball has
a chance land on the table. I'll try your technique for after the
bounce. I was trying to hit it at the top of the bounce.
> My personal, subjective observation is that hitting late, and into
>topspin, feels "heavier"...you have to let the ball "dig in" to the
>blade.
> Finally...just to be sure...when you say, "Other hardbats I've used
>feel natural...", do you mean that you *can* reverse topspin with them,
>but *not* with your new Hock/Leyland?
With the other bats I could get that tiny curve that lets the ball hit
the table on a hard hit. I could also reverse a ball that had picked
up the equivalent of "table-spin", i.e. the spin a ball picks up when
it bounces on the table.
--
"We never do anything well till we cease to think about the manner of
doing it." William Hazlitt
Iskandar Taib
> What was called "chiselling" or "pushing" was a relatively heavy
>back-spin shot executed, against back-spin, at or over the table. I
>presume it's still called a "push".
From what I gather, "chiseling" and "chiseler" were deragatory terms -
used to describe boring, hours-long push vs. push play, and the
players who played like this, that dominated early in the history of
table tennis.
>are so few examples of good Clasic technique still playing...when Marty
>Reisman quits, we'll all have to re-invent the wheel! I wonder if there
>are any more active players who still have strokes, tactics, and
>techniques, "uncontaminated" by playing with sponge...
From what I've read, though, Marty was not a typical player. He was a
strong attacker, while most of the other big names at the World's in
1952 were primarily defence men.
John Grinnell
*stroke* was integral to a style referred to a "push and pick", where
the idea was to prevent the opponent from gaining the offense, while
waiting for a "loose" ball to attack.
A match between two chiselers could bore you to tears, whereas a match
between two pick-hitters could be quite engrossing. I can't think of a
single higly ranked player (in New York,or the east coast) with the
possible exception of Arnold Fetbrod, who was an all-out chiseler. I
can think of a number of pick-hitters.
A player, like Marty, who was known to be an attacker was willing to
hit a less-than-optimal ball, to establish his offense. Miles was a
little less of an all-out attacker, as he was a lot more confident in
his defense. Somael was even less apt to strive for the offense...these
are *in general* observations. All those players had complete, well
rounded games, and were capable of playing with a different emphasis
under exceptional conditions.
By "exceptional", I mean a relatively subtle change, not an unusual
event. As an example, if Marty's forehand was particularly "hot", a
normally less aggressive opponent might decide to contest for the
offense more than usual.
As far as Marty being a strong attacker, it's a matter of *preference*
rather than an inability to play defense. He hit because, generally, he
felt it was his best weapon...not because he couldn't defend. Marty was
explosive, brilliant upon occasion, and his level of play could be
erratic...Miles was considered to be steady and methodical.
In any case, Marty's "retriever" defensive style was quite unlike
Miles' "short defense"...but both sets of strokes, although quite unlike
each other, still fall within the boundaries of "Classic" style.
Iskandar Taib wrote:
>
> In article <38603A7D...@tampabay.rr.com>,
> John Grinnell <jgri...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > What was called "chiselling" or "pushing" was a relatively heavy
> >back-spin shot executed, against back-spin, at or over the table. I
> >presume it's still called a "push".
>
> From what I gather, "chiseling" and "chiseler" were deragatory terms -
> used to describe boring, hours-long push vs. push play, and the
> players who played like this, that dominated early in the history of
> table tennis.
>
> >are so few examples of good Clasic technique still playing...when Marty
> >Reisman quits, we'll all have to re-invent the wheel! I wonder if there
> >are any more active players who still have strokes, tactics, and
> >techniques, "uncontaminated" by playing with sponge...
>
Scott Gordon
: > used to describe boring, hours-long push vs. push play, and the
: > players who played like this, that dominated early in the history of
: > table tennis.
Chiseling was a terrible problem during one (was it 1937?) of the
world's, where the organizers had made the mistake of repainting(!)
the tables a day or two before the event. The paint hadn't hardened,
and even hard shots didn't bounce off the table. Several players
discovered that under those conditions, chiseling was a viable strategy
even at the top levels. It was there that the infamous records
(longest point, longest match, etc) were made. After that tournament,
the net was lowered to 6 inches, and chiseling was not such a problem.
Many people seem to associate hardbat with chiseling, because of these
stories, almost all of which come from that one tournament. Since our
"resurgence", I have yet to see a chiseling duel. But raise the net,
and Houston we have a problem.
Scott
Waters, Julian
> Many people seem to associate hardbat with chiseling, because of these
> stories, almost all of which come from that one tournament. Since our
> "resurgence", I have yet to see a chiseling duel.
What about that awful snoozefest Dattel vs. Reisman at the Open?? That
was chisel city! Maybe not compared with the era you are talking about,
but stupifying nonetheless.
I found the Berger/Derek MAy match the most interesting and closest to
the spirit of the Classic game. Ty's game is very impressive, but
watching him makes me uncomfortable. Somehow it is too fast, as too
close to the sponge game in some ways. No offense to him though. He is
brilliant and has obviously worked very hard and competed fiercely for
every great vistory.
Julian
Scott Gordon
partners appear to be playing with bare wood or possibly sandpaper paddles.
I was shocked by the quantity of topspin-vs-topspin counter-driving
rallies, many from quite far back of the table. In fact, the rallies
are much faster and more modern looking than is evident on the Legends tape.
Yet the paddles look and sound more primitive than Leyland. Many of the
rallies look like bona-fide counterlooping, with wood! Of course, what
makes them truly spectacular is the inclusion of defense and longer rallies.
Perhaps their counterdriving would have been curtailed if *one* of the
players were using a spinnier surface, that the other's would not have
had the power to reverse? Is the main issue simply a level playing field?
I don't know, but this film contains just about the best hardbat play I've
ever seen, so it appears that even the most sensational levels of play
including the full range of attacking and counterattacking strokes can be
achieved with virtually any equipment whatsoever.
Scott
Scott Gordon
: What about that awful snoozefest Dattel vs. Reisman at the Open?? That
: was chisel city! Maybe not compared with the era you are talking about,
: but stupifying nonetheless.
That's the closest we've come, although watching the video of it, there
was a lot of pick-hitting... I think our expectations were to see Marty
doing more hitting, so it was a disappointment. Still, the match was
rather short, never even got close to expedite. Real chiseling matches
went on for *hours*.
: I found the Berger/Derek MAy match the most interesting and closest to
: the spirit of the Classic game.
Yeah, and also Berger/Butler, and Reisman/Doyle. All in all, this was
the best tournament yet for GREAT classic games!!! In spite of his close
loss to Doyle, Marty was playing particularly well this tournament... his
attack was "on" and a joy to watch. Even Freddie Gabriel remarked that
Reisman's drive against chop is excellent.
: Ty's game is very impressive, but
: watching him makes me uncomfortable.
His match with Derek was very enjoyable... make that "scary". I haven't
seen a barrage like that in hardbat play, ever. Derek looked like he was
facing a firing squad of machine guns. Nicknames "Terrible Ty" and
"Buzzsaw" were being bantered around. What amazes me is the energy he
puts in... he uses a full windup and follow-through on *every single*
shot, with full acceleration, ball after ball after ball. His skills
were not always readily apparent against Lily, but against Derek, my god.
Scott
Iskandar Taib
Scott Gordon <sgo...@sonic.net> wrote:
>: > From what I gather, "chiseling" and "chiseler" were deragatory terms -
>: > used to describe boring, hours-long push vs. push play, and the
>: > players who played like this, that dominated early in the history of
>: > table tennis.
>
>Chiseling was a terrible problem during one (was it 1937?) of the
>world's, where the organizers had made the mistake of repainting(!)
>the tables a day or two before the event. The paint hadn't hardened,
>and even hard shots didn't bounce off the table. Several players
>discovered that under those conditions, chiseling was a viable strategy
>even at the top levels. It was there that the infamous records
>(longest point, longest match, etc) were made. After that tournament,
>the net was lowered to 6 inches, and chiseling was not such a problem.
>
>stories, almost all of which come from that one tournament. Since our
>and Houston we have a problem.
I seem to recall reading a story about Leah Neuberger(?) or one of the
other early Women champions, which noted that her chief rival, an
Austrian, was noted chiseler. She could push forever, but could not
generate any offense to speak of.
Perhaps it wasn't such a problem on the mens' side, or at the top
ranks, but surely in the middle ranks, you probably found tons of
chiselers, much as you find a lot of longpips dinkers today.
As it was - the Expedite Rule was there for a purpose, and it was, I'm
sure, meant to break up "wrestling matches" between defencemen.
Scott Gordon
: Perhaps it wasn't such a problem on the mens' side, or at the top
: ranks, but surely in the middle ranks, you probably found tons of
: chiselers, much as you find a lot of longpips dinkers today.
I haven't heard this... actually, one of the skills of the "chiseler"
was the ability to dink back *every* ball, including attack shots.
I don't think the players in the middle ranks had the kinds of skills
to maintain a chiseling defense for such great lengths and against a
full range of shots. But I wasn't around. JTE?
Scott
John Grinnell
Let me begin with the usual caveat...I speak from personal observation
during the period 1947- 1954, only, and only about events (local,
regional and national) which took place in the NorthEast.
"Chiseller" was a term reserved for players who steadfastly
declined any opportunity to hit a topspin shot, other than absolute
no-brainer
put-aways. I really can't think of anyone who fell into that catagory
except Arnold Fetbrod...and I doubt if anyone really knew whether he
could hit out or not, as he was a notorious money-player who never
played a match he didn't think he had locks on...so, he seldom played
any better than he had to to win.
Chiselling *matches* on the other hand were the result of both a
player's attitude and his self-evaluation (with an exception I'll note
later) of what was the best tactics-set to use to win a match. If both
the player and his opponent felt he had a better chance to win any given
point by defending, a pushing match might ensue; *not* because either of
them
couldn't hit, but rather because each one thought it was safer and more
effective to let his opponent take the offense.
In general, one was more likely to see a match where both
players were striving to take the offense than one was likely to see
both players cede it. Among the top new Yorkers of the period, John
Somael probably had the weakest offense...an adequate backhand which he
used
occasionally, and a weaker forehand. Harry Hirshkowitz had a soft,
looping, spinny, steady forehand which he could hit consistently and
safely until he pounced on a loose ball...but he, like Somael, preferred
to defend. When Harry hit his forehand, it was as safe a shot as a
push...
Just to be clear, on the few occasions that Harry and I played
(he was a couple of years older and *much* better than I), he had no
compunction about hitting through me...he just preferred to defend when
playing strong opponents. So generally, chiselling took place because
of a
player's self-confidence and attitude toward (and evaluation of) his
opponent, not because of any inability to perform offensive strokes.
Most beginners followed the learning path:
backhand block;
backhand, over the table, backspin push;
forehand drive,
rudimentary backhand over the table, Flick,
forehand away from the table chop;
backhand away from the table chop,
bachand drive;
forehand, over the table backspin push.
Until you were comfortable with away from the table forehand & backhand
chops, one was, perforce, an attacking player. A typical (1200-1300
today rating) improving beginner would play the same point over and
over, on his serve...fast, deep, top-spin backhand to backhand serve
followed by a on-the-rise block to his opponent's backhand, ever ready
to run aronnd to hit the forehand at the earliest opportunity. If he
developed a backhand flick shot, its purpose was to take the offense,
hoping to open up a forehand drive.
Once a rudimentary defense had developed, it was no longer
necessary to attack every ball...one was willing to pass up the
lo-percentage
opportunities to hit, and was willing to gamble on making a chop return
which would force the opponent to stop hitting and push a drop
shot...which was a better ball to take the offense on, as you were
moving "in" toward the table, and were hoping for a (relatively) high
short drop to your backhand or a deeper one on the forehand.
It was only after *all* the shots were mastered and your skill
level
had increased considerably that you were able to decide whether to play
your most ffective game, or whether to play the game which most
discomfited your opponent. Gusikoff, as a "Boy" and "Junior" was a
notable exception...he became quite competitive with not too much more
than a backhand block and great foot speed which enabled him to get his
forehand into play. His defensive development lagged his offense by
more than the usual amount, as he improved.
To return to the original question..."tons of chiselers in the
middle
ranks...", one must first distinguish between folks on the learning
curve, as I described above, and older folks who, for one reason or the
other, had peaked...guys with limited games and/or unsound strokes, or
physical shortcomings, or older players...who did all sorts of
unorthodox things, attempting to throw you off your game. They were in
the minority...
There were players with onorthodox styles...Marcy Monasterial
and the
Infamous Joe Greene...who were blockers...there were "dinkers" like Ed
Coleman, who returned no-pace nothing-balls and chased down your every
attempt to hit through him...George Weinburg, who played a one-sided
Seemiller-type grip and blocked or hit with a "vertical" forehand
stroke, on the rise, straight up from off his right hip, from a
crouch...but besides Fetbrod, I can only think of one other
chiseler...Herby Koeffler (Kuffler?), who played as well in a folding
chair as he did on his feet...but he must have weighed over two-fifty,
at five-foot-six ...there just weren't many chiselers...
Even the mediocre players used *all* their strokes...they just
executed *all* the strokes not too well...
As to the exception I mentioned above...occasionally, during a
match
between two evenly-matched players, neither of whom had a lot of
confidence in his offense's potential...if one jumped out to a
meaningful lead, he might well go stolidly on the defense...figuring
that the expedite rule would provide a win in that game if his opponent
refused to hit...and he could eke out a win if the opponent *did* begin
to hit.
One final remark...a chiseller didn't "dink back every ball".
The ball came back with pace, usually, and to an inconvenient place to
hit, and
with varying spin. It was called your "table game", and its purpose was
to frustrate your opponent's desire to take the offense, and enable
yours. It was pro-active, not reactive. It should be likened to a
pitching duel, in baseball... Chislleing??? two guys pushing??? it just
wasn't a common occurence.
John the Elder (Thinking back...)
Iskandar Taib
Scott Gordon <sgo...@sonic.net> wrote:
>Iskandar Taib (nt...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: Perhaps it wasn't such a problem on the mens' side, or at the top
>: ranks, but surely in the middle ranks, you probably found tons of
>: chiselers, much as you find a lot of longpips dinkers today.
>
>I haven't heard this... actually, one of the skills of the "chiseler"
>was the ability to dink back *every* ball, including attack shots.
>I don't think the players in the middle ranks had the kinds of skills
>to maintain a chiseling defense for such great lengths and against a
>full range of shots. But I wasn't around. JTE?
Well, I suppose a mid-level chiseler would, by definition, be able to
withstand mid-level attacks, and out-last a mid-level attacker. One
needn't have to get back _every_ ball, just more than half, after all,
to win. A mid-level chiseler from that era wouldn't be able to
withstand the attack of a Reisman, any more than a modern midlevel
longpips dinker (how would Pat put it? "MMLPD"?) would be able to last
long against a 2000 player, let alone Cheng. If we define "midlevel"
to be, say, 1600, this player would still give 1300-1400 players fits.
Matt Cary
>Just got my hands on a film of Coleman Clark in the mid-30s. He and his
>partners appear to be playing with bare wood or possibly sandpaper paddles.
>I was shocked by the quantity of topspin-vs-topspin counter-driving
>rallies, many from quite far back of the table. In fact, the rallies
>are much faster and more modern looking than is evident on the Legends tape.
>Yet the paddles look and sound more primitive than Leyland. Many of the
>rallies look like bona-fide counterlooping, with wood! Of course, what
>makes them truly spectacular is the inclusion of defense and longer rallies.
Frankly, I find this hard to believe. If a full range of strokes were
possible using bare wood, people would have never started looking at
other surfaces. Unless, of course, they made their paddles sticky by
coating the surfaces with natural goo using a secret "re-pitching"
process ;-}
I've played against bare wood before (where I got my first experience
at "looping the table") and the spin generated by the blade was
significantly less in every case than the spin caused by the ball
hitting the table.
>Perhaps their counterdriving would have been curtailed if *one* of the
>players were using a spinnier surface, that the other's would not have
>had the power to reverse? Is the main issue simply a level playing field?
>I don't know, but this film contains just about the best hardbat play I've
>ever seen, so it appears that even the most sensational levels of play
>including the full range of attacking and counterattacking strokes can be
>achieved with virtually any equipment whatsoever.
--
Blade: Asti Cascade
FH Rubber: Lightspeed Attack
BH Rubber: Lightspeed Attack98
Larry Hodges
Houshang Bozorgzadeh. He must be close to 60 now; imagine what he was like
35 years ago! He takes everything off the bounce and chop-blocks everything
back dead; he rarely attacks anymore (although he used to). He can
double-bounce almost anything, even loops sometimes.
-Larry
Iskandar Taib <nt...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:849h8j$85u$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu...
John Grinnell
"Yeah, but he has a thick accent..."
The "full range of strokes" is certainly possible with *any* surface,
short of a hand-rubbed, french, piano-finish! The question is "How good
is the result?"
If you're not surprised that players in the fifties switched from
leyland to sponge and then to inverted/sponge, why do you question a
change from bare wood to cork or sandpaper, and from those to pimpled
rubber?
Assuming that the spin-imparting possibilities of sandpaper were low,
then it wouldn't take much to reverse the direction. The problem with
reversing spin would seem to occur when one bat has a much higher
coefficient of friction than the other.
Considering the deceleration of the ball, having been returned from
"way back", gravity is providing a substantial amount of assistance in
pulling the ball down on the table. I suspect there were few instances
of extended counter-drive rallies from "up close", especially if the
balls were low. A high ball can be hit "down" at the table surface, a
ball at net-height must depend on spin to pull it down, unless it's hit
quite slowly.
John the Analyst
Matt Cary wrote:
>
> sgo...@sonic.net (Scott Gordon) wrote: <snip>
>
> >.. playing with bare wood or possibly sandpaper paddles.
> >I was shocked by the quantity of topspin-vs-topspin counter-driving
> >rallies, many from quite far back of the table. <snip> Many of the
> >rallies look like bona-fide counterlooping, with wood!
>
Larry Hodges
> In article <849mhr$5hd$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> Larry Hodges <ttw...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >If you are all looking to see a high-level hard-bat chiseler, go see
> >Houshang Bozorgzadeh. He must be close to 60 now; imagine what he was
like
> >35 years ago! He takes everything off the bounce and chop-blocks
everything
> >back dead; he rarely attacks anymore (although he used to). He can
> >double-bounce almost anything, even loops sometimes.
>
> that name in his book. He was helping someone win a money match by
> pretending to win by accident, and his intended marks mentioned that
> "Bozo could've spotted him xx points"..
Same Bozo!
-Larry
Iskandar Taib
>If you are all looking to see a high-level hard-bat chiseler, go see
>Houshang Bozorgzadeh. He must be close to 60 now; imagine what he was like
>35 years ago! He takes everything off the bounce and chop-blocks everything
>back dead; he rarely attacks anymore (although he used to). He can
>double-bounce almost anything, even loops sometimes.
Was there a Bozorgzadeh before this one? Reisman mentions someone by
that name in his book. He was helping someone win a money match by
pretending to win by accident, and his intended marks mentioned that
"Bozo could've spotted him xx points"..
Sounds like the perfect application for Baxter D-100 (I was wondering
what you'd use it for..).
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Grinnell
produce a decent scaled scan of a sheet of authentic 1960's-era
"Original" Leyland, removed from one of the antique Hock bats.
With appropriate zooming and sizing within the ACDSee viewer, the pip
size and spacing can be rather accurately determined, and the
cross-hatched pip-surface is discernable.
The result: an ixlaArtist file leyland-1.bmp of 7,712kb,
which I'll forward to anyone interested, on request.
John the Retro-Researcher
wye@earp
Iskandar Taib wrote:
> In article <849mhr$5hd$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> Larry Hodges <ttw...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >If you are all looking to see a high-level hard-bat chiseler, go see
> >Houshang Bozorgzadeh.
Hi,
Suddenly, this name Bozorgzadeh interests me. How do I "go see" him/her?
--
□■□ wye@earp □■□
w...@ta2.so-net.ne.jp
Larry Hodges
wye@earp <w...@ta2.so-net.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:3873B5C0...@ta2.so-net.ne.jp...
> > In article <849mhr$5hd$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> > Larry Hodges <ttw...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > >If you are all looking to see a high-level hard-bat chiseler, go see
> > >Houshang Bozorgzadeh.
>
> Hi,
>
> Suddenly, this name Bozorgzadeh interests me. How do I "go see" him/her?
He lives in Iowa in the U.S. He was the Iranian Champion for many years in
the early 60s or so, and (I was told) made the finals of the Asian
Championships one year (I believe it was when China was missing because of
the Cultural Revolution). He moved to the U.S., and at one point was the
U.S. Men's Team Coach. He goes to most of the major tournaments in the U.S.
He is around 60 years old.
-Larry Hodges
wye@earp
Larry Hodges wrote:
Thanks for the info. Much as I am curious how he plays, here's no I can challenge
him living in Japan!
--
□■□ wye@earp □■□
w...@ta2.so-net.ne.jp
Matt Cary
decided to stick with the Leyland a while longer. My experience
agrees with what he says, which is that you get more spin reversal by
hitting the ball after the top of the bounce. This doesn't create
much of an attack against topspin, but does let me create some variety
on defense besides just chopping every topspin that comes over.
I practiced reversing topspin at home a while against a wall. Then
I got a chance to play against a former hardbat player, who has played
sponge for the last 20 years and is over 1750 as a looper. He gave me
some advice on how to hit with Leyland, which was very similar to his
bat of old. I was able to take a game off of him, my hardbat vs. his
sponge and was again able to beat a 1550 sponge player. The 1750
player also took some turns with the hardbat and we all had a good
time.
I hereby officially withdraw my "Yuck" on Leyland. It is playable
and I didn't know what-the-heck I was doing. Leyland does seem more
limited in spin reversal than other hardbat rubber, but it reacts to
spin very little and makes flat counter-hitting very accurate. I
won't know how to compare this to other hardbat rubber until I get the
chance to play with them again.
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 13:04:59 GMT, John Grinnell
<jgri...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Admitedly, counter-driving "on the rise" is very difficult...and the
>result is, at best, a flat-hit counter. Counter-driving from further
>back becomes relatively simple...open the blade a little, start lower,
>and hit the ball on the decent, after the top of the bounce. However,
>if you're expecting to produce a ball which "hops" after it bounces,
>you'll seldom see that result. I suspect that the inability to produce
>a "sponge-type" loop is the basis for your assertion that Leyland can't
>reverse topspin.
> My personal, subjective observation is that hitting late, and into
>topspin, feels "heavier"...you have to let the ball "dig in" to the
>blade.
>Matt Cary wrote:
>> >Matt Cary (matt...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>> >: I just bought a couple of hardbats from Hock and had them put Leyland
>> >: rubber on. It doesn't seem to work very well. If there is any
>> >: topspin on the ball at all, it isn't reversed and produces a long-pips
>> >: style nothing ball. I bought two extra sheets to put on an old Knight
>> >: blade and get the same effect? Is this normal for Leyland?
>>
>> <snip> but the Leyland just
>> feels too much too me like playing with a naked blade.
>> It may well be that I don't know what-the-heck I'm doing, but the
>> other hardbats I've used felt so natural to use after a little
>> practice. This one never gets comfortable.
John the Elder
I think you'll agree, now, that HardBat and sponge play are similar, but subtly
different...both in strokes and in expectations.
Now that you have the ability to counter-topspin, why not start working on your
ability to vary the spin on your chops. A floating nothing-ball, accomplished
with a stroke which is deceptively similar to the one which produced a "loaded"
chop, is a very effective weapon. A good way to start is to try to see just how
heavy you can get the chop, emphasizing the "wrist" part of the stroke...then
try the same stroke with a rigid wrist. You *may* have to add a little forward
vector at the time of contact.
Not particularly easy, at first, but worth the effort. Keep the ball low, and
you'll be surprised at the number of weak returns you force your opponent into.
Keep up the good work!
JTE
Matt Cary wrote:
> After reading this thread and getting an email response from John, I
> decided to stick with the Leyland a while longer. My experience
> agrees with what he says, which is that you get more spin reversal by
> hitting the ball after the top of the bounce. This doesn't create
> much of an attack against topspin, but does let me create some variety
> on defense besides just chopping every topspin that comes over.
>
> <snip>
Matt Cary
<jgri...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>Now that you have the ability to counter-topspin, why not start working on your
>ability to vary the spin on your chops. A floating nothing-ball, accomplished
>with a stroke which is deceptively similar to the one which produced a "loaded"
>chop, is a very effective weapon. A good way to start is to try to see just how
>heavy you can get the chop, emphasizing the "wrist" part of the stroke...then
>try the same stroke with a rigid wrist. You *may* have to add a little forward
>vector at the time of contact.
Chopping hasn't been a problem. I'm bizarre enough to try chopping
with reglued Max sponge, so the hardbat feels great for chopping. I
was mostly concerned about being forced into a limited game of
chopping with an occassional smash on a high ball.
Thanks again for the sound advice.
--
"The first 90% of the job takes 90% of the time.
The last 10% of the job takes the other 90% of the time."