BLOG

Review: BUTTERFLY Glayzer

Author: Karel Malík

Review of the revolutionary Butterfly Glayzer and Glayzer 09C rubbers.

 

IMG 9988      IMG 9989     IMG 9993

Hi everyone, fans of all things new in Table Tennis.

Today, we’re going to break down two new rubbers from BUTTERFLY that hit the market on April 1st, 2023. Anyone who follows TT gear closely knows we’re talking about the Glayzer and the Glayzer 09C.

In my opinion, both of these rubbers have the potential to make a huge impact on the TT community, and I think they’ll sell very well—perhaps even more than their competitors would like.

The concept behind the Glayzer is similar to the one used for the Dignics 05.

IMG 9990      Butterfly GLAYZER 09C 06

The Spring Sponge X is used here, this time in a new grey color with a hardness of 38°—which is two degrees softer than the Dignics 05. The top sheet features the 'code 05' pimple structure, the same one made famous by Tenergy 05 and Dignics 05.

On the other hand, the Glayzer 09C follows a concept similar to the Dignics 09C. It also features the new grey Spring Sponge X, but with a hardness of 42°, which is again two degrees softer than the Dignics 09C. The top sheet is slightly tacky with the 'code 209' pimple structure—identical to the one found on Dignics 09C. It even comes with a protective film for the top sheet.

For both rubbers, the company claims top-tier playing characteristics, specifically designed for players who might not yet have the technical level to handle their 'pro' equivalents—Dignics 05 and Dignics 09C. They also promise long-lasting durability, just like the rest of the Dignics series.

Curious readers can find the manufacturer's detailed descriptions, which I think are very well done, here: https://www.butterfly-global.com/en/product/glayzer/

To put it in layman's terms: the Glayzer is meant to be a 'friendlier' and more manageable alternative to the Dignics 05, with the Glayzer 09C serving the same role compared to the Dignics 09C.

Both rubbers are clearly targeting competitive players—not just with their performance, which seems great and should help players level up their game, but also with a price point that is bound to be very attractive for players at this level.

Butterfly GLAYZER 09C 05   

 

For this test, I chose the Glayzer in red (2.1 mm) and the Glayzer 09C in black (also 2.1 mm). The rubbers were applied using Butterfly Free Chack PRO II glue without any additional modifications—two layers on the rubber and one on the blade. Cutting them with a razor blade was seamless; the edges were clean, and neither the sponge nor the top sheet crumbled, which is always a hallmark of a precisely manufactured rubber.

Blades used for testing: BUTTERFLY Moonbeam, Lin Gaoyuan, and Kong Linghui Special.

Below, I’ll try to introduce both rubbers in action, comparing them to each other and to their professional counterparts—Dignics 05 and 09C. At times, I'll also compare them to Tenergy 05 (which I’ve played with continuously since 2008) and Tenergy 05 HARD, which was tested fresh at the same thickness and on the same blade.

As always, I’d like to ask readers for a bit of leniency. I’m not a professional-level player; my peak was playing the 2nd league a long time ago, and I currently play at the regional 'division' level. With an ELO of around 1880, please keep in mind that I’m reviewing these from the perspective of a competitive amateur. I’m aware of my own technical flaws and understand that higher-level players might perceive these rubbers differently. Nevertheless, I believe this review can offer valuable insight for the amateur community.

Let’s start with the weight of both rubbers:

Next, I must list the technical parameters of all the rubbers mentioned today, which I believe will help readers orient themselves more quickly.

For the sake of clarity, it’s worth noting that as of February this year, Butterfly has switched to a new numerical rating system for speed and spin. They have also added an 'ARC' rating—which, in simple terms, indicates how easily the rubber generates a curved flight path.

You can find a comparison of all major Butterfly rubbers with the Glayzer series here: https://www.butterfly-global.com/en/product/glayzer/learn.html

The manufacturer explains the new speed and spin rating system here: https://www.butterfly-global.com/en/products/rubber/performance.html

The speed, spin, and ARC values provided by the manufacturer are as follows:

| Rubber | Speed | Spin | ARC | Sponge Type & Hardness |

Glayzer                     81                73               82               Spring Sponge X 38°

Dignics 05                 86                85               88               Spring Sponge X 40°

Glayzer 09C              75                87               95               Spring Sponge X 42°

Dignics 09C              79                96               96               Spring Sponge X 44° 

Tenergy 05               83               76               79                Spring Sponge  36 ° 

Tenergy 05 HARD     82               96               92               Spring Sponge  44°

 

Speed

In my opinion, the Glayzer is a very fast rubber—definitely significantly faster than the Glayzer 09C. Looking at the numerical ratings provided above, I believe the speed value for the Glayzer is accurate. It feels only slightly slower than Tenergy 05. On high-power, aggressive shots, I’d even say it matches the speed of Tenergy 05. I think this is due to the Glayzer’s slightly harder sponge compared to Tenergy 05.

Dignics 05 is, of course, faster than Glayzer. Thanks to its harder sponge, this difference is more noticeable during power shots or when dealing with an opponent's sharp, high-quality balls. This is where Dignics 05 reigns supreme—it absorbs the energy and fires back an even sharper projectile. While Glayzer handles these balls very well, it just lacks that ultimate "firepower" of the Dignics 05.

Regarding the Glayzer 09C, its speed parameters relative to the professional Dignics 09C also seem to correspond with the manufacturer’s claims. However, I’ll add a small side note: this difference is most prominent during high-intensity shots. At lower intensities, it’s actually easier to generate speed with the Glayzer 09C. I believe sponge hardness plays the decisive role here—the softer sponge of the Glayzer 09C activates more easily than the harder one on the Dignics 09C, helping to overcome the slight tackiness of the top sheet.

Spin

The Glayzer offers plenty of spin. I think its numerical rating might even be a bit understated, just as I feel the spin of Tenergy 05 is underrated. Its rotational potential is only slightly lower than that of Dignics 05. Glayzer is a very strong spinning rubber, and thanks to its softer sponge, it’s easier to generate spin even on lower-intensity shots—something competitive amateur players will definitely appreciate.

In my view, the highest-spinning rubber from Butterfly is clearly the Dignics 09C. It’s followed closely by Tenergy 05 HARD (which I find slightly overrated in terms of spin), and then right behind them are the Glayzer 09C and the classic Tenergy 05. As you can see, I don't entirely agree with the manufacturer's ratings here.

Glayzer 09C is spin-wise stronger than the regular Glayzer—there’s no doubt about that—but I don't think the gap is as large as the official numbers suggest. Again, due to its concept and softer sponge, the Glayzer 09C makes it easier to generate spin on "lazy" balls compared to the Dignics 09C.

Precision & Control

The Glayzer is a phenomenally precise rubber. Its accuracy is absolutely stunning. For its speed and dynamics, I believe it is the most precise (or highest-control) rubber from Butterfly! This is great news for competitive players because the rubber can support you even in awkward situations where your positioning isn't optimal, you're under time pressure, or your technique isn't perfect.

The Glayzer 09C is also very precise. Those who enjoy and understand this type of rubber (slightly tacky top sheet + dynamic sponge) will be very satisfied. However, if you aren't used to this type of surface (like me), it takes some time to figure out how the tackiness vs. the sponge engagement reacts depending on the racket angle and stroke intensity.

ARC (Flight Trajectory)

I agree with the manufacturer that the Glayzer has a lower arc than Dignics 05. Where I disagree is the comparison to Tenergy 05—I believe Tenergy 05 has a higher arc and its numerical value is underrated. The ARC ratings for Glayzer 09C vs. Dignics 09C seem accurate; the difference is truly minimal.

Catapult & Hardness

Both Glayzer and Glayzer 09C have a more pronounced catapult effect on slower balls than their Dignics counterparts. They also feel significantly softer than the "pro" versions. Is it just down to the sponge being two degrees softer? Personally, I don't think so. If you’ll allow me a little conspiracy theory :-), I suspect these rubbers are manufactured with slightly less internal tension. This results in great characteristics for us amateurs but also explains that softer feel. This is, of course, just my unsupported amateur theory.

Sensitivity to Weather (Cold, Humidity)

I think both rubbers handle humidity quite well—definitely better than Tenergy 05, which I consider one of the most sensitive rubbers in damp conditions. Regarding temperature, like any rubber, they do react. My tests were conducted between 15–21°C. You can feel the properties changing more in the Glayzer than in the 09C, which fits their respective concepts. However, there are no dramatic shifts in performance.

On-Table Performance

To put it simply: imagine a softer, slower, and more precise Dignics 05—and you have the Glayzer. Do the same for Dignics 09C, and you have the Glayzer 09C. Both rubbers perform better if you are able to play quickly off the bounce, close to the table, and move actively toward the ball.

  • Service: Both are very strong at generating spin on serves. For competitive amateurs, they might even be better than the pro versions. However, if your serve is a major weapon and you have a very fast, sharp wrist, you will still "conjure" more spin with Dignics 05/09C or Tenergy 05.

  • Receive: This is a major strength of both Glayzers. In amateur hands, they receive better than the pro equivalents. They don't pick up as much spin and it's easier to judge what to do with the ball. The softer sponge allows the ball to sink in even during a more passive stroke. Tenergy 05, while great for serving, is notoriously difficult for receiving as it "eats" the opponent's spin.

  • Topspin: The bread and butter of these rubbers. Both are incredibly strong and precise.

    • Glayzer: Faster, lower arc, better for topspin further from the table or when hitting the ball on the drop. It is an incredible rubber for our level—I’d even dare to say it's better than Tenergy 05 for us. It might not be as "dangerous" for the opponent, but you can land it a million times in a row. It is very forgiving of technical or footwork errors.

    • Glayzer 09C: Slower, higher arc, better for topspin and counter-topspin close to the table. For amateurs, it’s great on the forehand where you can really lean into the shot.

Blade Selection

Butterfly mostly recommends synthetic (carbon) blades for the Glayzers, and I agree. On the Lin Gaoyuan (ALC, Koto outer) and Kong Linghui Special (3+2 Carbon/Hinoki), both rubbers felt sharper and better than on the stiff, high-catapult but soft-feeling Moonbeam. Synthetics really suit both Glayzers.

Conclusion

Butterfly has truly succeeded with the Glayzer series.

  • Players who play an all-around pressure game based on topspin, occasionally move away from the table, and prefer a non-tacky, dynamic rubber with great control should go for the Glayzer.

  • Players who are active close to the table, play with lots of rotation, and don't want an overly fast rubber will prefer the Glayzer 09C.

These rubbers truly have a lot to offer, especially to the competitive amateur community.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to everyone for reading this far, and of course to the "Vše na stolní tenis" shop for providing the rubbers for testing.

Until next time,

Karel Malík