I agree witn Marty's observations and analysis of the hardbat dilemma. It will
be impossible to recreate classic hardbat table tennis unless a new rubber with
the qualities of Leyland is available. And even then there would be problems.
Sponge players who have been entering hardbat events might stop entering them if
a fast and spinny rubber was not allowed. It might be impossible to have
hardbat events at many tournaments, and the entry at the nationals might be
pretty small. And now that players have learned spinny serves and the serve and
smash strategy, they would continue to play that way even with a low spin
rubber. I played a match with Courtney Roberts at the last nationals, and he
was using a Hock bat with Leyland rubber. His serves were legal and extremely
difficult to return...it was all technique. You can't ask someone to stop doing
something he has taken the trouble to learn. But I think it is worthwhile to
try to preserve classic hardbat, and the first problem is to find a Leyland like
rubber. Then we could try holding hardbat events that only allowed the low spin
rubber, and see if there are enough entries, and if the classic style of play
proved to be more successful than the serve and smash style.


--- In hardbat@yahoogroups.com, "martyreisman" <martyreisman@...> wrote:
>
> I have watched in silence as the posts on this site go endlessly over
technological and other extraneous issues which the posters seem to believe have
some relevance to the game we played in the Classic Era ... the game that we
tried to resurrect under the banner of "hardbat". But it is past time that I
spoke up … and so, in this and subsequent postings I intend to address some of
these controversies.
>
> At the outset, let me say unequivocally that the motivating impulse behind the
resurrection of "hardbat" was not to give a home to sponge players to play a
modified sponge-light, 3-Ball, serve-intensive variation of the modern game sans
sponge. Who in his right mind would SEEK to do that?
>
> Rather, the intent was to restore the classic game of table tennis to USATT
tournaments so its beauty, dialogue, and spectator appeal would not be lost, and
also to provide to players of the modern era, a peek into their rich heritage –
a heritage few modern players know about – to a world of table tennis when
spectator interest was at its peak and American table tennis players were truly
world-competitive. The world where technique, not technology, was the focus of
the game.
>
> Contrary to what anyone may believe, the constant barrage of opinions,
observations, suggestions and insights in reference to the current hardbat game
that appear regularly on this forum bears little relationship to classic table
tennis as was played during The Golden Era, because at the elemental equipment
base-level, the current hardbat game incorporates elements of deceit, fraud and
deception made possible by the very nature of the modern hardbat rubbers, not
one of which existed prior to 1952.
>
> Most hardbat players of today, in reality, are playing and discussing a mutant
variation of the sport, being neither Classical nor Sponge. Just because the
modern rubber does not have an underlying sponge layer does not automatically
qualify it to parade under the banner of the classic game -- the game that was
played by Barna, Bergmann, Leach, Vana, Andreadis, Sido as well as everyone else
prior to the advent of sponge. Have no illusions, today's hardbat game is not
the classic game by a longshot, yet that was its reason for being.
>
> A more apt description of the game as currently played should be Junk Hardbat.
It's certainly not Classic table tennis because the purity of that game was
based on utilization of spin for control, not befuddlement of the opponent. Yet
this is a key element of Junk Hardbat -- and the selection of such rubber to
produce such havoc is indisputably a prime consideration of most of today's
hardbat players.
>
> Present-day hardbat rubbers, most particularly Dr Evil, Butterfly Ox, Hallmark
Magic Pips, Yasaka, Cobalt even the Reisman Classic, etc, despite what anyone
thinks, are capable of producing disturbing springiness and aberrational spins,
elements which have contaminated and undermined what we sought to resurrect,
bastardizing it in a manner having no relationship whatsoever to the classic
game as it was played with Leyland, Dunlop, and Slazenger coverings, and the
like.
>
> Regrettably, the table tennis game that was played during the Golden Era has
been so bent out of shape by the spin-oriented mentality of the longtime
spongers gravitating between sponge and hardbat that the art of the classic game
relating to strokes, technique, footwork and strategy is never even discussed as
it once was when its artistry and stroke-analysis were the topics of discussion
among neophytes and experts alike.
>
> As an unrepentant purist and foremost expert on the subject of Leyland, and
based upon my ability to assess the precise effect that respective junk rubbers
have on the ball, as well as my knowledge of having played the game for almost
70 years, I find these discussions by most posters on this forum to be totally
without merit – on a fool's errand really – as they attempt to analyze, compare
and decide on the best junk coverings that are currently being paraded as
classic rubbers but that are actually more closely related to a peanut butter
sandwich than to rubbers used in the Classic Era.
>
> The fact that we cannot any longer obtain Leyland rubber is no reason for
despair or a throwing up of hands. With a revival of interest in table tennis
that seeks to level the playing field, a decent paddle with rubber conforming to
the playing characteristics of the Classic Era can be manufactured and
successfully marketed. Had Killerspin sought classic expertise instead of
choosing to follow its own lights, such a paddle could already be in existence.
>
> In all my years as a player during the Classic Era, the effect of the rubber
was never a topic of discussion because none of the extreme outcome-influencing
products even existed. The absurdity by some players, apparently bereft of
talent, to experimentally tamper with the modern rubbers to further increase
efficiency by sandpapering the pips or adding linen-backing to rubber sheeting
indicates a growing desire and a never-ending quest to bring even a greater
degree of sponge insanity – and elements of chaos – into what is already only an
extremely poor remnant of the classic game.
>
> To those of you who are not tuned into the purity and the art of the genuine
game of the Classic Era – which, I suspect, is most of you (for reading books
and seeing a few newsreel clips is not the same as experiencing years of such
play) – who are hell-bent on finding and using the most effective rubbers
possible, all I can say is that it is just such a sponge-driven mentality that
has contributed to transforming my intent into a watered-down version of
pimples-out sponge, a far cry from my half-century-long ambition to resurrect
Classic table tennis with all its integrity.
>
> The inescapable fact is that most everyone here is playing, promoting,
discussing and analyzing a considerably butchered and bastardized version of the
game of the Golden Era, so let's not try to palm it off to the world, to each
other, to me and especially to generations to come, that this is Classic table
tennis, because it's not. When you see it played you'll know it. So will
everyone on the planet.
>
> Reisman
>