NO.1 table tennis review site

User review

• 

  ROZENA

  

  I used all the sizes — 1.7, 1.9, and 2.1. Even at max thickness it averages around 45g, so it's on the light side.

  It's a classic that works well across a wide range, from beginners up to a certain level.
  The sheet is thin and soft enough that the pips are clearly visible through it. The pip shape is probably closest to the 80 series.
  The trajectory is fairly flat and it bounces quite well.

  You can easily experience the "auto" feeling that's the trademark of Tenergy.
  The sensation of it softly gripping the ball and springing it back like a trampoline is genuinely impressive the first time you feel it.
  You can do a full range of techniques without issue, but keep in mind that the rubber's own stretch/snap isn't all that strong.
  If you hit it too hard, the ball tends to drop short compared to Tenergy.
  Also, the arc doesn't come out easily, so it's hard to use a stroke that forces the ball down aggressively with spin.

  It's lightweight with well-rounded performance overall — aside from the lifespan, this seems like a rubber with nothing to complain about.

  See original review Hide original review

  1.7、1.9、2.1全サイズを使用しました。特厚でも平均45G近辺で軽めです。

  初心者からある程度のレベルまで幅広く使える名作です。
  シートはかなり粒が浮き出て見える位薄く柔らかいです。粒形状は80系が近いでしょうか。
  弾道は直線的で割と良く弾みます。

  テナジーの代名詞であるオート感を簡単に体感できます。
  柔らかく掴んでトランポリンのように跳ね返す感覚は初めて体感すると感動しますね。
  一通りの技術は問題なく出来ますが、ラバーの引き攣れ自体がそこまで強くは無い点は注意が必要です。
  強くぶつけすぎるとテナジーに比べて落ちやすいです。
  後は弧線も出にくく、回転で強引に打球を落とす等の打ち方は難しいです。

  軽量かつまとまった性能であり、寿命以外は文句の出ないラバーと思われます。

  2025/03/26

  Overall	9/10
  Speed	7
  Spin	6
  Control	10
  Hardness	Little soft

  Recomend racket Acoustic

  Was this review helpful to you? Like! Thank you for your feedback. Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.

  10

• 

  GTT45

  

  As a first rubber, this is my top recommendation for both forehand and backhand.

  The sponge is a bit hard for beginners at 45°, but the sheet is soft, making this an easy rubber to handle overall.
  The bounce is about the same as a 1.8mm Rigan, but the ease of putting spin on the ball is on a completely different level.
  On top of that, the sheet is sensitive enough that I think it's easy to learn how to read and handle spin from the opponent.

  And with all that performance, the list price being under 4000 yen makes it great value for money.
  This is quality that could easily be sold for 5000-6000 yen.

  The disappointing point is that it's only sold domestically in 1.6mm.
  If they added a lineup up to 2.0mm, I think this rubber is good enough to capture most of the beginner market share.

  Beginners, please definitely give this one a try.

  See original review Hide original review

  1枚目ラバーとしてフォアバック共に最推しのラバーです。

  スポンジは初心者にはやや硬めの45°ですが、シートが柔らかく扱いやすいラバーです。
  弾みはライガンの1.8と同じくらいですが、回転の掛けやすさが段違いに良いですね。
  その上ある程度のシートの敏感さもあるので、回転に対する処理の方法を覚えやすいかと思います。

  更に上記の性能で定価4000円以下の設定なのはかなりコスパがいいです。
  本来ならば5000～6000円位で売られていてもおかしくない品質です。

  残念な点は1.6ミリのみの国内販売な点ですね。
  2.0ミリまでラインナップすれば初心者帯のシェアの大半を取れるのではと思えるくらいにいいラバーです。

  初心者の方は是非一度試してみて下さい。

  2025/02/11

  Overall	10/10
  Speed	4
  Spin	8
  Control	10
  Hardness	Soft

  Recomend racket Acoustic

  Was this review helpful to you? Like! Thank you for your feedback. Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.

  7

• 

  Fastarc G-1

  

  I used MAX. Weight before cutting was 72g, and about 51g after cutting.

  This is truly a landmark rubber of the early generation of German rubbers.
  The sheet has fairly thick, low-grip pips-in style feel. The sponge, on the other hand, is dense and relatively hard.

  Moderate bounce, a decent amount of spin — it's the benchmark for the 47.5° hardness range, on par with Rakza 7.
  The arc is also a bit on the high side and it can handle meet hits reasonably well, so as long as the weight isn't an issue, it works on both forehand and backhand.
  In particular, the sheet's low grip is higher than you'll find on recent rubbers, so I'd recommend it to anyone struggling with their receives.
  That said, once a drive rally gets going, returning spin gets tough — but if you're at the level where that comes up, it's probably time to move on to a higher-end rubber anyway.

  If you buy it online, the discount is big and you can often get it for under 5000 yen, so great value for money might be its biggest feature.
  If you're not sure which rubber to use, give this one a try.

  See original review Hide original review

  MAXを使用しました。カット前72G、カット後約51Gです。

  本当の初期世代ドイツラバーの代表作です。
  シートは粒が太めの鈍感系。逆にスポンジは詰まっていて比較的硬い部類ですね。

  程よい弾み、そこそこ掛かる回転、ラクザ7と双璧となる47.5°帯のベンチマークです。
  弧線もやや高めでミートもある程度こなせるため、重量さえ問題ないならフォアバックどちらも行けますね。
  特にシートの鈍感さが近年のラバーにはない位高いので、レシーブで困っている方にもお勧めします。
  その分ドライブでラリーになると掛け返しが苦しいですが、そのプレーが出るレベルならもっと上位のラバーへの移行期です。

  通販で買うと割引額が大きく大体5000円以下で入手も可能なので、コスパ良さが最大の特徴かもしれません。
  使うラバーに悩んだら一度手に取ってみて下さい。

  2025/11/18

  Overall	7/10
  Speed	7
  Spin	7
  Control	8
  Hardness	Little soft

  Recomend racket REVOLDIA CNF

  Was this review helpful to you? Like! Thank you for your feedback. Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.

  5

• 

  GLAYZER

  

  Used the 2.1mm version. Before trimming it weighed 70.0g, and after trimming 47.2g, so it's a relatively heavy piece.

  The sheet feels a bit on the firm side, and not all that sensitive, I'd say.
  The trajectory is pretty flat with a low arc, but my impression is that it produces plenty of speed.

  The sheet grips the ball better than I expected, so the ball lifts nicely, but it doesn't produce all that much spin on drives.
  On the other hand, for mid-distance topspin rallies and counters, its clean release and strong kick-off really shine, and I felt that's where the rubber's strengths came through.
  That said, it also tends to fly straight and sail long without dropping much.

  Given the weight and trajectory, I think it's a reasonable choice for the backhand.

  See original review Hide original review

  2.1ミリを使用しました。カット前70.0G、カット後47.2Gの比較的重量個体です。

  シートはやや強め、そこまで敏感ではない感じでしょうか。
  かなり直線的な弾道で弧線も低いですが、スピードはかなり出る印象です。

  シートの引っ掛かりが思ったよりいいので球は持ち上がるのですが、ドライブの回転量はそこまで出ません。
  逆に上回転の中陣やカウンターでは玉切れの良さと飛び出しの強さが生きて、ラバーの良さが出ていたと思います。
  ただ、結構落ちずに直線のままオーバーしたりもしますね。

  自分は重量と弾道でバック採用はありかなとは思います。

  2025/07/01

  Overall	7/10
  Speed	8
  Spin	6
  Control	7
  Hardness	Little soft

  Recomend racket Innerforce Layer ALC

  Was this review helpful to you? Like! Thank you for your feedback. Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.

  5

• 

  GLAYZER09C

  

  I used the 2.1mm thickness.

  This is my first slightly-tacky rubber, so these impressions come from still figuring out how to use it.

  My first impression: it doesn't fly far, but it does lift. In contrast to the regular Glayzer, which felt straight-line, this was a completely different animal.
  Despite a sponge hardness of 52°, the topsheet is soft enough that I barely feel that hardness.
  You'd think a soft topsheet would struggle with the short game, but true to being slightly tacky, it settles beautifully on the short game and counters.
  Pushes and stops in particular are so good that once you get used to them, you won't want to go back to a regular tension rubber.
  That said, while drives do lift, the trajectory is clean but the spin is moderate and it lacks power, so it fell a bit short as a finishing shot.

  Overall it's a rubber that's easy to keep on the table, so I think it's just right for learning slightly-tacky tension rubbers.
  Honestly, a slightly stiffer inner- or outer-ply blade might have suited it better than what I paired it with.

  See original review Hide original review

  2.1ミリを使用しました。

  初の微粘着系なので打ち方等模索しながらの所感となります。

  第一印象は飛距離出ないけど上がる、ですね。通常グレイザーが直線的だった分対比で全くの別物でした。
  スポンジ硬度52°の割にはあまり硬度を感じない位シートが柔らかいです。
  柔らかいシートだと台上等に難がありそうですが、流石は微粘着と言った感じで台上やカウンターは抜群の収まりです。
  特にツッツキやストップは慣れると通常のテンションに戻りたく無くなる位いいですね。
  ただ、ドライブも上りはするものの綺麗な球筋で回転量もほどほど、威力も出ない為決定打に欠けました。

  とにかく入れやすいラバーなので、微粘着テンションを学ぶには丁度いいと思います。
  張るラケットは正直もう少し硬めのインナーかアウターにした方が良かったかもしれません。

  2026/01/25

  Overall	6/10
  Speed	5
  Spin	7
  Control	9
  Hardness	Little soft

  Recomend racket Innerforce Layer ALC

  Was this review helpful to you? Like! Thank you for your feedback. Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.

  4

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. Next >
7. Last »