What is IITF waiting for? (19)
Re: What is IITF waiting for?
by JRSDallas 12 years ago
The following message (subject: Re: What is IITF waiting for?) was posted by JRSDallas, on 3/28/2008 12:16:58 PM:
|Old Timer. I observed that you, fadil and TTfan are "addicted to complaining" based on the number of threads on this forum where you guys are repetitively complaining about the frictionless LP ban and some wild hair about short skirts, and with these posts a general a lack of objective reasoning. The evidence of your own postings on this forum stands on its own. |
Now if third parties believe that I am unfair then they are welcome to express their view and I would feel obligated to listen and reconsider.
However, if the people I've observed to be so addicted are complaining about my observing their behavior then I am unmoved....and at some level your complaining about my observation supports my claim...
Moving on to your second point of "Am am I a cry baby too?"
Ben pointed out that I am a two wing looper. I myself would say that I am two-side inverted close to the table two wing attacker (I loop, pick hit and smash). This distinction may not be of significant.
This forum's record shows that I was the first person to point out (having seen it on MyTT.net) that rubber treatments such as speed glue and boosters and all such products (even non-voc products) were likely to be banned. In that posting I said that this should remove the number of compaints about the unfair advantages of speed gluers, AND then I said (alluding to my later posted observation on addiction to complaining) that I doubted that it would reduce the total number of complaints.
Now ths record also shows that I did not complain that banning speed gluing would cause me difficulty or say that Sahara should go or say how I had just bought 10 sheets of rubber which need sponge tuning to play their best. I said NOTHING about any of this.
By September I will have to do something different than I am doing today but I understand the reasoning behind the ban and I accept it.
Do you see the difference?
Now as for my thoughts on long pips and your sloppy use of the phrase "LPs ban".
1. I don't like playing against frictionless LPs but most of the time I don't have much problem. I do have the occassional bad loss but since I learned to play as an inverted flat hitter, and since I understand frictionless LP, I know that I control whether I win or lose.
I do think that frictionless LP passive block play is not impressive for spectators and I don't think that winning this way is demonstrative of much skill. (And that is exactly why coaches more focused on winning than building player skills get their young players to adopt frictionless LPs, and why many basement/untrained players migrate to frictionless LP so as to win without learning basic swing mechanics).
Frictionless LP is very effective at enabling the user to avoid having to play ping pong. I support the ban on "Frictionless rubber surfaces."
Regular (non-frictionless) LPs users pursuing mixed defence+attack and classic defensive play is great and I enjoy such matches win or lose completely.
At our club and many that I visit on travel there are a number of LP players. Some are not difficult at all and others are very difficult due to their overall skills at attacking and tempo change.
A lot of times I win, and sometimes I lose.