Why do I think people may be interested in my blade and rubber test scores given the existence of sites like Revspin or Tabletennisdaily? Because they are written by one reviewer!

One problem with community-based equipment scores is that we don't know the reviewers. What is their playing level? What is their playing style? How old are they? Do they have any special physical limitations that influences their perspective?

A DHS Hurricane 3 and Yasaka Rakza 7 soft certainly feel very different to a 1200 USATT-rated 10-year-old kid, an 1800 USATT-rated 55-year-old with a bad shoulder, and a 2500 USATT-rated 23-year-old in their prime. Chances are the 10- and 55-year-olds don't have the physique and/or technique to unlock the full potential of a Hurricane 3, whereas the Rakza 7 soft may be too squishy for the 2500-rated player and not enable full power transfer onto the ball.

Moreover, a player's ability to articulate their experiences with a piece of equipment, be it in written or quantitative form, will also vary. People's understanding of an equipment characteristic differs (e.g., blade stiffness vs hardness, or rubber "gears"). And being a university professor, I know people grade and understand grades differently.

I submit to you that a dataset that has been compiled by one person is more likely to be consistent. You may disagree with my scores as we probably apply different grading criteria, but rest assured that I have spent a lot of time to calibrate the scores as seen from my perspective.

My scores will be dynamic, that is, I will periodically reflect, re-test, and revise scores, as equipment technologies improves. For example, just a few years ago, Tenergy 05 was seen as the pinnacle of rubber technology by many. However, the introduction of rubbers like Dignics 09c is challenging this notion, prompting an re-evaluation of test scores.