Path: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!bu.edu!acs.bu.edu!ttennis
From: ttennis@bu.edu (Table Tennis)
Newsgroups: news.answers
Subject: rec.sport.table-tennis Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) [Part 3/5]
Summary: This posting contains a list of Frequently Asked Questions
(and their answers) about Table Tennis ("Ping Pong"). It
should be read by anyone who wishes to post to the
rec.sport.table-tennis newsgroup.
Message-ID: <119855@bu.edu>
Date: 18 May 93 01:17:48 GMT
Expires: 18 May 93 01:17:47 GMT
Sender: news@bu.edu
Reply-To: ttennis@bu.edu
Followup-To: rec.sport.table-tennis
Organization: Boston University Table Tennis Assn, USTTA Affiliate 43-90
Lines: 593
Approved: news-answers-request@MIT.Edu
Originator: ttennis@acs.bu.edu
Archive-name: table-tennis/part3
Version: 2.1
rec.sport.table-tennis answers to Frequently Asked Questions and other
news, posted monthly:
Table of Contents:
==================
1.1. Table of Contents
1.2. Terminology
1.3. USTTA "Laws of Table of Tennis"
2.1. USTTA-approved Equipment Suppliers
2.2. WHERE can I call Toll-FREE? (within USA)
2.3. WHERE to get FREE tournament Software?
2.4. HOW to become an UMPIRE?
3.1. How long is a 11 pt game?
3.1.1 table "Probability of winning match"
3.2. What are Handicap Events?
3.2.1 How does USTTA Rating system works?
3.2.2 What is the probablility of winning?
3.2.3 Handicap Charts
3.3. Canadian TTA to USTTA rating conversion chart
3.4. Does it matter who serves first?
3.5. What is Speedglue?
3.5.1 First Press Release Statement on Speedglue Ban
3.5.2 What speedglue are ITTF-approved?
4.1. USTTA club manual
5.1. USTTA-affiliated club directory
Send comments, suggestions, contributions, revisions and criticisms
regarding this FAQ list via e-mail to:
ttennis@bu.edu
3.1 HOW LONG IS AN 11 POINT GAME?
=================================
[Date: Wed 10 Feb 1993 10:39:01 From: "David J. Marcus"
]
Eleven points, of course. A more precise question: Is a 4 out of 7 match of
11 point games the same as a 2 out of 3 match of 21 point games? Why do we
care? Over the last few years many tournaments both in the US and in other
countries have experimented with 11 point games to see if they make the
matches more exciting. Why don't you try such an event at your next
tournament? The results can still count for rating points (check with the
rating chairman for the current policy).
How do we measure the length of a match other than simply counting the
total points? The key is to realize that the length of a match is reflected
in the probability that the better player will lose. The longer the match,
the smaller the probability of an upset. Using standard modeling
assumptions (probability of winning a point is independent of the score) we
may relate the probability of winning a point to the probability of winning
a match under various formats. For simplicity, we will assume the
probability of winning a point does not depend on who serves. (It is
possible to take into account the dependence on who is serving, but the
conclusions remain the same.)
The table gives the probabilities of winning a match under various formats.
Each row of the table corresponds to a different format. For example, the
first row is for one game to 11 points. The "Games" column gives the number
of games you need to win the match, so "2" means a 2 out of 3 match. The
last row, labeled "2 sets" is for the tennis format: Each game is to 4
points with deuce at 3, each set is to 6 games with deuce at 5, and the
match is 2 out of 3 sets. I've used the old tennis format: no tie-breakers.
Note that I've also included a format of one game to 51. This is a popular
format for handicap matches.
Each column gives the probability of winning the match for a different
probability of winning a point. Note that the first column is the same for
all formats because it corresponds to a probability of winning a point of
0.5. If the two players are evenly matched and the format is fair (and all
these formats are), then the probability of winning the match is 0.5
regardless of the length. The larger the numbers in a given row, the longer
the match. The rows are in order with the shortest format at the top and
the longest format at the bottom.
So what can we conclude? A normal 2 out of 3 match is half way between the
11 point game formats of 3 out of 5 and 4 out of 7. It is slightly closer
to the 4 out of 7 format. A normal 3 out of 5 match is between the 11 point
formats of 5 out of 9 and 6 out of 11, but is closer to the 5 out of 9. The
51 point game is almost the same as a normal 2 out of 3. And finally, the
tennis format of 2 out of 3 sets is longer than all the other formats.
3.1.1 table PROBABILITY OF WINNING MATCH
-------------------------------------------------
Format | Probability of Winning Point
Points Games | 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.60
-------------------------------------------------
11 1 | 0.50 0.58 0.65 0.72 0.78 0.84
21 1 | 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.79 0.86 0.91
11 2 | 0.50 0.61 0.72 0.81 0.88 0.93
11 3 | 0.50 0.64 0.77 0.86 0.93 0.97
21 2 | 0.50 0.65 0.79 0.88 0.94 0.98
51 1 | 0.50 0.66 0.79 0.89 0.95 0.98
11 4 | 0.50 0.66 0.80 0.90 0.96 0.98
11 5 | 0.50 0.68 0.83 0.92 0.97 0.99
21 3 | 0.50 0.69 0.84 0.93 0.98 0.99
11 6 | 0.50 0.70 0.85 0.94 0.98 1.00
2 sets | 0.50 0.71 0.87 0.95 0.99 1.00
-------------------------------------------------
3.2 WHAT ARE HANDICAP EVENTS?
=============================
[Date: Wed 10 Feb 1993 10:38:58 From: "David J. Marcus"
]
Handicap events are a lot of fun. You get to play people you wouldn't
ordinarily play and everyone has to play their best in every match.
However, the key is a good handicap chart. Simple formulas such as four (or
two) handicap points per hundred rating points (in a game to 21) are a
start, but we should be able to do better. We will construct new handicap
charts for both 21 point games and 51 point games.
It is traditional for a handicap match to consist of one game to 51. The
reason is that a large handicap in a 21 point game can force the players to
drastically change their styles: the stronger player plays too
conservatively since the weaker player only needs to win a few "lucky"
points. Playing 2 out of 3 doesn't change this, but one game to 51 gives
more room to maneuver.
How do we construct a handicap chart? There are three steps:
1. We need some data from which we can estimate the probability that one
player will defeat another player in a nonhandicap match.
2. Then we relate the probability of winning a nonhandicap match to the
probability of winning each point.
3. Finally we calculate how many handicap points will make the handicap
match fair.
3.2.1 HOW DOES USTTA RATING SYSTEM WORKS?
-----------------------------------------
Before discussing the data, let's discuss how the rating system works. This
will make it easier to understand the data.
The tournament director of each tournament sends all the results for the
tournament to the USTTA rating chairman Dan Simon. Dan processes the
tournaments in the order they were played. After processing, he sends a
report back to the tournament director that gives the new rating for each
player who played in the tournament. So, you may get your new rating from
the tournament director several weeks after the tournament.
Here is the rating chart which gives the number of rating points that the
winner of each match wins and the loser loses.
---------------------------------------
Rating | Higher rated | Lower rated
difference | player wins | player wins
---------------------------------------
0- 12 | 8 | 8
13- 37 | 7 | 10
38- 62 | 6 | 13
63- 87 | 5 | 16
88-112 | 4 | 20
113-137 | 3 | 25
138-162 | 2 | 30
163-187 | 2 | 35
188-212 | 1 | 40
213-237 | 1 | 45
238- | 0 | 50
---------------------------------------
However, the calculation of the ratings involves more than just this chart.
The first problem is unrated players. Dan looks at the results of each
unrated player (including the number of points the player scored). Using
this information, he assigns a rating to each unrated player. From now on
he treats unrated players just like rated players using the newly assigned
rating. So, you do win and lose points when you play an unrated player.
To finish calculating the post-tournament ratings, Dan makes two passes
through the results. The first pass is a screening pass to identify players
whose ratings should be adjusted. Dan uses the rating chart to calculate
how many points each player would win for the tournament. Any player who
would win at least fifty rating points has his rating adjusted up. This
means that Dan replaces his pre-tournament rating with a new adjusted
rating which is used as his rating for the second pass. In the second pass,
Dan uses the rating chart again to calculate the post-tournament rating for
each player.
So, from the point of view of the rating system, there are actually three
ratings for every player in a tournament. The first rating is the
pre-tournament rating which is the rating the player has going into the
tournament after all earlier tournaments have been processed. This is not
necessarily the same as the rating used at the tournament since Dan
processes the tournaments in the order they were played.
The second rating is the adjusted pre-tournament rating. This is different
from the pre-tournament rating for two classes of players:
1. unrated players,
2. players who have their ratings adjusted.
No one has a zero adjusted rating, since all the unrated players are given
a rating. If the player was rated and he is not being adjusted, then his
adjusted rating is the same as his pre-tournament rating. The third rating
is the post-tournament rating.
To summarize: the pre-tournament rating is the rating before the tournament
is processed. The adjusted rating is the rating after unrated players are
given ratings and after the first screening pass. The post-tournament
rating is the player's new rating that will be published in the next issue
of TT Today.
DATA
Dan graciously sent me the results from eight tournaments played in April
and May 1989. Here are some statistics of the number of players and matches
in those eight tournaments.
---------------------------------------------------------
Category | Players | Matches
|------------------------------------
| Number Per cent | Number Per cent
| of total | of total
---------------------------------------------------------
all | 459 100.0 | 1510 100.0
unrated | 49 10.7 | 225 14.9
adjusted | 49 10.7 | 417 27.6
unrated or adjusted | 98 21.4 | 609 40.3
---------------------------------------------------------
The row labeled "all" is all the players and all the matches. The row
labeled "unrated" is those players who were unrated going into the
tournament and those matches in which either player was unrated. The row
labeled "adjusted" is those players who had their ratings adjusted and
those matches in which either player was adjusted. The row labeled "unrated
or adjusted" is those players who were either unrated or had their ratings
adjusted and those matches in which either player was unrated or adjusted.
In case you were wondering, the number of "unrated" matches plus the number
of "adjusted" matches doesn't equal the number of "unrated or adjusted"
matches because there were 33 matches in which an unrated player played an
adjusted player. It is interesting that 40.3% of the matches involve
unrated or adjusted players. This and the fact that you don't know the
pre-tournament ratings is why you can't exactly calculate your own
post-tournament rating.
Which set of ratings should we use to construct a handicap chart? Well, in
principle we should use the pre-tournament ratings since these ratings are
closest to the ratings that are actually used at the tournaments. Rather
than make a decision, we'll construct charts using each of the three sets
of ratings.
3.2.2 WHAT'S THE PROBABILITY OF WINNING?
----------------------------------------
We want to extract from the data the probability of winning a match as a
function of the difference in ratings of the two players. Let's look at the
distribution of the matches by rating.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rating | Pre | Adjusted | Post
difference |-------------------------------------------------
| Matches Upsets | Matches Upsets | Matches Upsets
-------------------------------------------------------------
0- 299 | 973 272 | 1126 260 | 1123 212
300- 599 | 229 15 | 275 4 | 283 1
600- 899 | 69 1 | 86 0 | 80 0
900-1199 | 11 0 | 17 0 | 18 0
1200-3000 | 3 0 | 6 0 | 6 0
-------------------------------------------------------------
The reason there are fewer total matches in the "Pre" column is that we
have excluded those matches that involve an unrated player. For our
purposes, the main thing to notice is how few matches there are with large
rating differences and how few of them are upsets. Hence any estimate we
calculate for the probability of winning when there are large rating
differences will be of questionable accuracy. Of course we are using only 8
tournaments; there are over 200 tournaments per year.
TECHNICAL STUFF
To proceed we need a model for the probability of winning a nonhandicap
match as a function of the rating difference. This gets technical for
awhile. We will use a logistic model. Let D be the rating difference, P be
the probability of winning a nonhandicap 2 out of 3 match, and b be the
model parameter. The form of the logistic model is
P( D ) = exp( bD ) / ( 1 + exp( bD ) )
We fit the model to each of the three sets of data by maximum likelihood.
Here is the result.
------------------
Ratings | b
---------|--------
Pre | 0.00795
Adjusted | 0.01115
Post | 0.01517
------------------
Each model lets us calculate the probability of winning a nonhandicap 2 out
of 3 match for any difference in rating. Given standard assumptions
(probability of winning a point is independent of the score and of who is
serving) a probability of winning a nonhandicap 2 out of 3 match
corresponds to a probability of winning a point.
This suggests how to calculate a handicap chart. Pick one of the three
models. Pick a rating difference. Convert this to the probability of
winning a nonhandicap 2 out of 3 match using the model. Convert this to the
probability of winning a point. Now find the handicap such that the
probability of winning a handicap match is 0.5 (i.e., the handicap match is
fair to both players). By the way, my 386 computer (no coprocessor) needed
about an hour to compute the charts.
3.2.3 HANDICAP CHARTS
---------------------
Here are the handicap charts calculated from the above data. First are the
charts for a 51 point game. Second are the charts for a 21 point game. Each
table contains three handicap charts labeled "Pre", "Adjusted", and "Post"
corresponding to the three sets of ratings that we have. Since we had so
little data for rating differences of more than 300 points, I wouldn't be
surprised if the charts are not good for large handicaps. I've used these
handicap charts in tournaments and I recommend you use the Post chart.
--------------------------------------------
Handicap | Rating Difference
|----------------------------------
| Pre | Adjusted | Post
--------------------------------------------
0 | 0- 9 | 0- 6 | 0- 5
1 | 10- 29 | 7- 21 | 6- 15
2 | 30- 49 | 22- 35 | 16- 26
3 | 50- 70 | 36- 50 | 27- 37
4 | 71- 92 | 51- 65 | 38- 48
5 | 93- 114 | 66- 81 | 49- 60
6 | 115- 137 | 82- 98 | 61- 72
7 | 138- 161 | 99- 115 | 73- 84
8 | 162- 186 | 116- 133 | 85- 97
9 | 187- 212 | 134- 151 | 98- 111
10 | 213- 240 | 152- 171 | 112- 126
11 | 241- 269 | 172- 192 | 127- 141
12 | 270- 300 | 193- 214 | 142- 157
13 | 301- 333 | 215- 237 | 158- 174
14 | 334- 368 | 238- 262 | 175- 193
15 | 369- 405 | 263- 289 | 194- 212
16 | 406- 445 | 290- 317 | 213- 233
17 | 446- 488 | 318- 348 | 234- 256
18 | 489- 534 | 349- 381 | 257- 280
19 | 535- 583 | 382- 416 | 281- 305
20 | 584- 636 | 417- 454 | 306- 333
21 | 637- 694 | 455- 495 | 334- 363
22 | 695- 756 | 496- 539 | 364- 396
23 | 757- 823 | 540- 586 | 397- 431
24 | 824- 895 | 587- 638 | 432- 469
25 | 896- 973 | 639- 694 | 470- 510
26 | 974-1058 | 695- 755 | 511- 555
27 | 1059-1150 | 756- 820 | 556- 603
28 | 1151-1251 | 821- 892 | 604- 655
29 | 1252-1360 | 893- 969 | 656- 712
30 | 1361-1478 | 970-1054 | 713- 775
31 | 1479-1608 | 1055-1147 | 776- 843
32 | 1609-1750 | 1148-1248 | 844- 917
33 | 1751-1906 | 1249-1359 | 918- 999
34 | 1907-2077 | 1360-1481 | 1000-1089
35 | 2078-2267 | 1482-1616 | 1090-1188
36 | 2268-2477 | 1617-1766 | 1189-1298
37 | 2478-2711 | 1767-1933 | 1299-1421
38 | 2712-2973 | 1934-2120 | 1422-1559
39 | 2974-3000 | 2121-2331 | 1560-1713
40 | | 2332-2570 | 1714-1889
41 | | 2571-2844 | 1890-2091
42 | | 2845-3000 | 2092-2324
43 | | | 2325-2598
44 | | | 2599-3000
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Handicap | Rating Difference
|----------------------------------
| Pre | Adjusted | Post
--------------------------------------------
0 | 0- 23 | 0- 17 | 0- 12
1 | 24- 73 | 18- 52 | 13- 38
2 | 74- 127 | 53- 90 | 39- 66
3 | 128- 185 | 91- 132 | 67- 97
4 | 186- 251 | 133- 179 | 98- 131
5 | 252- 327 | 180- 233 | 132- 171
6 | 328- 414 | 234- 295 | 172- 217
7 | 415- 518 | 296- 369 | 218- 271
8 | 519- 641 | 370- 457 | 272- 336
9 | 642- 790 | 458- 563 | 337- 414
10 | 791- 970 | 564- 691 | 415- 508
11 | 971-1190 | 692- 848 | 509- 623
12 | 1191-1460 | 849-1041 | 624- 765
13 | 1461-1797 | 1042-1281 | 766- 942
14 | 1798-2223 | 1282-1585 | 943-1165
15 | 2224-2774 | 1586-1978 | 1166-1454
16 | 2775-3000 | 1979-2504 | 1455-1840
17 | | 2505-3000 | 1841-2383
18 | | | 2384-3000
--------------------------------------------
3.3 CANADIAN TTA to USTTA RATING CONVERSION CHART
=================================================
0000-0399 +670 1800-1899 +090 2350-2399 -050
0400-0699 +545 1900-1999 +055 2400-2449 -060
0700-0899 +460 2000-2049 +025 2450-2499 -065
0900-1099 +390 2050-2099 +010 2500-2549 -075
1100-1299 +315 2100-2149 -005 2550-2599 -085
1300-1499 +245 2150-2199 -015 2600-2649 -095
1500-1599 +195 2200-2249 -020 2650-2699 -100
1600-1699 +160 2250-2299 -030 2700-2749 -110
1700-1799 +125 2300-2349 -040 2750-2799 -120
3.4 DOES IT MATTER WHO SERVES FIRST?
====================================
[Date: Wed 10 Feb 1993 10:39:02 From: "David J. Marcus"
] (see p31 of Jan/Feb 91 TTTopics)
At the start of every match, assuming you win the coin flip (or the roll of
the ball), you must decide if you want to serve or to receive. Does it
matter which you choose? Now, I don't mean is there a psychological
advantage. To see what I mean consider chess. There is a significant
advantage to having white in chess. Even if you prefer defense to offense,
you should take white. Or consider a game of volleyball. In volleyball your
team only scores points when it is serving. It is intuitively clear that,
given a choice, you should serve first.
So what about table tennis? Is there an actual advantage to serving first?
Before reading further, try to answer this question.
Let's be explicit about our modeling assumptions. Assume that the
probability of winning a point only depends on which player is serving, and
in particular is independent of the score. First note that if the game goes
deuce, then it doesn't matter who served first since no matter who wins,
each player will have served the same number of times.
What if the game doesn't go deuce? Consider the following modification of
the rules: Rather than stopping when one player reaches 21, keep playing
until 40 points have been played. If you win the game under the modified
rules, then you must win at least 21 of the 40 points and hence would have
won the game under the standard rules. Similarly if you lose under the
modified rules, you also would have lost under the standard rules. But,
under the modified rules, both players serve 20 times and so it doesn't
matter which one served first. So the answer to our question is: No, it
doesn't matter who serves first.
How about handicap matches? Traditionally a handicap match is played as one
game to 51. In order to analyze this, modify the rules so we'll play a
total of 100 points (unless we go deuce). Serve changes when the sum of the
scores is a multiple of 5, just as in non-handicap games. Let A be the
player who serves first and let B be the player who serves second.
Suppose the handicap is 1 point. Player A serves 4 points and then B serves
5 points, and the rest of the game continues normally with each player
serving 5 points at a time. Hence A will serve a total of 49 points and B
will serve a total of 50. Therefore you should choose to serve second
(unless you are weird and are more likely to win a point when your opponent
serves). Now let's consider a handicap of 5. Then player A will serve 50
points and B will serve 45. Therefore you should serve first. If the
handicap is 10, then both players will serve 45 and it doesn't matter who
serves first.
Let's summarize what you should do for handicap games. Only the last digit
matters (so you want to do the same thing for a handicap of 17 as for a
handicap of 7). If the last digit of the handicap is 0, then it doesn't
matter who serves first. If the last digit of the handicap is 1, 2, 3, or
4, then you want to serve second. If the last digit of the handicap is 5,
6, 7, 8, or 9, then you want to serve first.
We'll leave doubles for a future article or you might try it as a
(difficult) homework problem. It might also be interesting to analyze a 2
out of 3 handicap match where each game is to 21.
Perhaps a few words about psychological advantage is in order. If there is
no real advantage and the players know this, then there shouldn't be any
psychological advantage. However, if you know there is no real advantage,
but your opponent doesn't, then perhaps you can get a psychological
advantage by letting him serve first.
3.5. What is Speedglue ?
========================
(From: ""Alexander J. Chien""
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 11:50:24 -0500)
Speedglue, the glue used in the practice of regluing your rubbers, has been
used since the late 70's. I believe that the practice was attributed to
Klampar or Surbek. What the players do before each practice session or
match is to peel off the rubber sheet from the wood blade, put fresh glue
on both the blade and rubber sheets, and replace the rubbers back onto the
wood. The secret is a solvent that is found in the glue - most commonly -
trichloroethylene. The trichloroethene can penetrate into the molecular
network of the sponge effectively 'swelling' up the sponge (A crude analogy
may be taking a sponge that the hard when dry and becomes soft wneh wet).
The rubber sheet, when 'swelled' by tri-chloroethylene becomes much softer.
This will do a few things to your bat. The ball can penetrate further into
the sponge of your rubber, in effect, making more contact with the blade.
Thus, the more contact the ball has with the blade, the faster your shot
will be. Also, since you can sink the ball further into the spong you can
generate more spin. The softer sponge also markedly increases the dwell
time that the ball stays on your racket - so it can also increase your
control.
Regluing is more effective with rubber sheets that have a soft sponge.
The softer sponges have a less heavily cross-linked molecular network than
hard sponges that allow the solvents to penetrate easier and swell/expand
the sponge easier. Thus, there will be more of a regluing effect if you use
a soft sponged rubber. However, a soft sponge will lose it's elastisity
faster than a hard sponge.
Some disadvantages come with regluing. The first disadvantage is the
decrease in elasticity of the sponge. When trichloroethylene penetrates
the sponge and breaks apart molecular cross-links, the sponge becomes
softer. When the solvent proceeds to evaporate from the sponge, the
cross-links are not in the same condition as they were before the solvent
was applied, and thus, a decrease in the elasticity/ resilience of the
sponge. After about 20 regluings, there can be a significant change from
the original character of the rubber. The second disadvantage is the
constant change is racket angle when playing. The effect of the solvent
gradually decreases over time, and constant modifications in your racket
angle must be done. Also, regluing will add weight to your bat each time
you reglue because of the extra glue applied. Finally, the solvents used
are usually very volatile, toxic, and could be cancerous.
3.5.1 First PRESS RELEASE STATEMENT on SPEEDGLUE BAN
----------------------------------------------------
The ITTF Executive Board, at its meeting at Manchester on 14th of December
1992, received reports from scientific experts in toxicology and chemistry
on the harmful effects of the Aromatic and Chlorinated solvents used in
some types of rubber adhesives. On the basis of these reports it was
agreed unanimously to recommend the Executive Commitee to take urgent
action to prevent the use of such adhesives by Table Tennis Players. The
Executive Commitee accepted this recommendation and decided:
1. To impose an immediate ban in events directly under ITTF control, such
as the Global Youth Championships in Tokyo in January 1993 and the World
Championships in Gothnburg in May 1993; and
2. To ask Continental and National Federations and organisers of
international competitions to enforce a similar ban in events under
their control from 1st January 1
Any person, e.g. player, coach, official, responsible for contravening this
rule will be liable to immediate disqualification and suspension for at
least 3 months. Where it is necessary for rubbers to be replaced during a
competition it must be done in a designated place, under the supervision of
an official and using an adhesive supplied by the organiser.
Manufacturers and suppliers are asked to discontinue marketing of adhesive
containing Aromatic and Chlorinated solvents, and to ensure that their
products are clearly marked with the ingredients.
Players and coaches are asked to cooperate in ensuring that the ban is
observed.
Manchester, December 15th, 1992.
Signed
Ichiro Ogimura, President.
3.5.2 WHAT SPEEDGLUES are ITTF-APPROVED?
----------------------------------------
[From: hoens@gmd.de (Guenter Hoens)
Date: 30 Apr 93 10:38:13 GMT]
this is the list of ittf-approved speed-glues,
list nr 3, dated 17.march93
Andro Fast, Butterfly Fair Chack,
Butterfly Pro Chack, Changi Power Drive,
Contra Speed, Donic Appelgren Puro,
Hanno Fresh, Joola Green,
Juic Ecolo Effect, Nittaku Banda Waldner Clean,
Nittaku Rubber Dine, Posno Spin Speed,
Schildkroet TT Glue, Schoeler & Micke Belagkleber,
Skitt Coppa Light, Stiga Victory Tibhar,
Rapid Clean, TSP Norika Clean,
Victoria Belagkleber
--
_
| ) .....o ,O.o BOSTON UNIVERSITY TABLE TENNIS ASSN | |
|< _______|_______ /> USTTA AFFILIATE 43-90 ttennis@bu.edu | |
|_).|_\\ //| Sargent Gym 1 University Rd, Boston MA 02215 |_|.