All history is distorted. Heck, we can't even keep the recent past straight. A
case in point is Marty's characterization of my recent experiments with linen
backing on Dr Evil as an attempt to "increase efficiency" when the twice stated
purpose was to see if adding such a backing would make the rubber more like
Leyland. His assessment of my lack of talent may be correct, but his assessment
of the intent of the experiment was quite wrong.

I don't know if the classic game is hopelessly lost or not. My best estimate,
however, is that it won't arise naturally just because someone manages to
perfectly copy Leyland, Barna or Slazenger rubber and then standardize a game
based on that. As others have said, there have been other influences and it
seems unlikely that players will naturally gravitate to a style of play that is
largely the same as the classic game. It would probably move in that direction,
but I doubt seriously that it would make it all the way. There have been too
many other influences since 1959.

I think the only way you get back to the classic game as it was played in the
day is if the players purposefully make it a point to eschew those tactics,
serves and strokes that have been developed since. You might be able to make
some rule changes about serves that would help, but implementing rules that
limit tactics and strokes is going to be more of a problem.

Getting back to copying Leyland or the other classic rubbers, I'm not at all
optimistic. I've read that a lot of money was spent trying to develop the
Reisman rubbers, and Marty seems to think that attempt failed. Perhaps an
attempt to do this again unfettered by the need to get ITTF approval would make
success more likely.

And success would be further enhanced if somebody has good technical information
on the formulation of the original Leyland or other rubbers. The Leyland
company has reorganized and is now operational. I wonder if information about
Leyland table tennis rubbers survived the reorganization and if they would be
willing to part with it. I doubt they would be willing to produce a niche
product like table tennis rubber, but they might not mind getting a licensing
fee from some other company that wanted to produce it.

Events like the Hardbat Classic might make resurrecting a classic rubber more
viable also. But I don't think companies like Killerspin are likely to help
much. Killerspin seemed to put a higher priority on getting three plastic
medallions built into the HBC-501B than in providing a decent blade to play
with. I wonder if Marty has had a chance to play with a Killerspin HBC-1 or
HBC-501B? Heck, a number of the HBC-501Bs warped - something that I understand
just doesn't happen with Bernie Hock's blades.

The name Killerspin should be a clue as to what to expect. The fact that they
don't sell one OX rubber or even one "pips-out" rubber with sponge is another
clue.

I think Marty is quite right that the current hardbat play is not the same as
the play in the classic era. Though at times I think we can catch a glimpse of
a shadow of that style of play in some matches. If people want that classic
game revived, then I think a different approach than what has been employed to
date is quite obviously needed. And that is not intended as a put-down of the
previous efforts. I'm glad the efforts were made and applaud them. That they
were made has enhanced my enjoyment in playing table tennis - even if my play is
a sadly mutated style executed in the absence of any talent.

Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com

BTW, when I play at John's house, we have quite often discussed strokes and
tactics. And even on this forum there was a recent discussion about books that
would properly teach classic table tennis strokes. In fact, we were just
discussing the Miles forehand this afternoon - referencing the sketches in his
book, "The Game of Table Tennis". Go figure.