Short Pips both sides...

[Tony's Table Tennis]

So you want me to change my DAUGHTER to double SP's to test my hypothesis that a double SP player might be able to get into the top 100 in the MEN'S game?

Think that one through...take all the time you need!

nope, just to see if she can stay in the top of the women's game
didn't realize i need to type it all out for you

if a women's can't even do it, what make you think a men's player can?

but again, you coming from the mind of a parent.
i understand... its difficult to think 360 degrees when comes to the sport

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

You can look up Otilia Badescu from Romania. She's a WTTC singles bronze medalist.

IMO pips had the biggest disadvantage in the 40mm no speed glue era. Less spin with the large ball made it easier to flat hit, and even inverted players are playing with more forward motion instead of spin now so it's definitely viable even if it's not the best style.

Another advantage of pips is rhythm disruption though which you won't get much of with double-sided short pips. In modern times Kyoka Idesawa and Ayhika are the best. Slowing down the game with their backhand also gives them more opportunities to forehand flat kill.

sp on backhand is still very popular
the trick is control and placement on bh to use fh top spin.

also you can get sp that dips the ball, but it is also more difficult to control.
I have trained probably over 10 U19 girls in the past 18 months that are levels higher than USATT2100 who uses SP backhand.
It is so common in Taiwan, but then again, when they up against a strong two wing inverted, slowly the ball down or dipping it, is not a threat for a solid player.
its quite often the SP BH player will net the ball in rallies, due to the inability to generate spin and flat hit against real speed, doesn't work.

Now give it 2 sides.... lol
maybe 1 sp and 1 lp is better idea to be honest in the women's space
mens' side.... i guess one needs to see the ability of elite mens in person to know what we actually talking about

 

[ViperTableTennis]

nope, just to see if she can stay in the top of the women's game
didn't realize i need to type it all out for you

if a women's can't even do it, what make you think a men's player can?

but again, you coming from the mind of a parent.
i understand... its difficult to think 360 degrees when comes to the sport

But the women's game is not my hypothesis, and I don't decide what equipment my daughter uses - she does.

We already know that there is more style variety in the women's game and that pimples are more commonplace at the elite level in the women's game. Like you say, Tin Tin is the no1 in the UK and she uses pimples, so running the "would double SP's work?" experiment in the women's game would be much less interesting, in my opinion.

And I'm not coming at it from the mindset of a parent...because I am not the parent of any males that play table tennis!

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

But the women's game is not my hypothesis, and I don't decide what equipment my daughter uses - she does.

We already know that there is more style variety in the women's game and that pimples are more commonplace at the elite level in the women's game. Like you say, Tin Tin is the no1 in the UK and she uses pimples, so running the "would double SP's work?" experiment in the women's game would be much less interesting, in my opinion.

And I'm not coming at it from the mindset of a parent...because I am not the parent of any males that play table tennis!

then adopt a son and make him play double sp...

do what you want and believe what you want.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

then adopt a son and make him play double sp...

do what you want and believe what you want.

But I'm not "believing what I want". I'm postulating a hypothesis and then opening it up to debate. My hypothesis is that it would be possible to get a few double-sided SP players into the men's world top 100 if only a few more people would seriously train at that style. It's a hypothesis, something to be discussed and potentially tested by the table tennis community; it's not a notion that I firmly believe in and it could be incorrect. Do you understand what a hypothesis is, and how it differs from a conclusion?

I'll tell you what, let me give you a win here. I'm not prepared to "adopt a son" to test my hypothesis. Please take my unwillingness to go through the adoption process as an indication that I already know my hypothesis is doomed to failure before its been tested.

 

[NetProphet]

So you want me to change my DAUGHTER to double SP's to test my hypothesis that a double SP player might be able to get into the top 100 in the MEN'S game?

Think that one through...take all the time you need!

Aren't you the one who made all the cases for why this can work in post 10.
My take on this is that you arrived in post 1 with questions and then disagreed with all evidence based responses but, despite seeming to argue that it can work and seeming perplexed that nobody is doing it you are not actually willing to try it in a place where it actually matters. Doesn't that mean then that you think it won't work and there's a dog eating it's tail here?

My opinion would be there's absolutely no chance whatsoever that a double pips human will ever make it in the current table tennis environment with the current rules. Even if the most insanely talented person trains with it forever there is absolutely no chance they can cause enough problems to beat enough inverted players to get anywhere - that's what the current environment looks like to me anyway because speed and spin is what causes the difficulty in the game. Without both on both sides you just can't force the opponent to miss the table enough.

What you're suggesting or postulating as you put it is becoming narcissistic now. Narcissistic because there's a concept or idea that you have thought of but that nobody else has thought of or has the smarts to try.
But you've had the brainwave and you'll defend it being 'correct' event though there's nothing but evidence to the contrary.
That's a full of crap argument right there..
In short, you're just wrong and pushing this further and further is just trolling

 

[ViperTableTennis]

Aren't you the one who made all the cases for why this can work in post 10.
My take on this is that you arrived in post 1 with questions and then disagreed with all evidence based responses but, despite seeming to argue that it can work and seeming perplexed that nobody is doing it you are not actually willing to try it in a place where it actually matters. Doesn't that mean then that you think it won't work and there's a dog eating it's tail here?

There's absolutely no chance whatsoever that a double pips human will ever make it in the current table tennis environment with the current rules. Even if the most insanely talented person trains with it forever there is absolutely no chance they can cause enough problems to beat enough inverted players to get anywhere.

What you're suggesting or postulating as you put it is becoming narcissistic now. Narcissistic because there's a concept or idea that you have thought of but that nobody else has thought of or has the smarts to try.
But you've had the brainwave and you'll defend it being 'correct' event though there's nothing but evidence to the contrary.
That's a full of crap argument right there..
In short, you're just wrong and pushing this further and further is just trolling

Where in post 10 did I state that double SP's could definitely work? Post 10 is almost entirely me responding to Tony and questioning specific claims he made.

I don't feel like I've been given evidence based responses to counter my hypothesis, because I don't feel like my hypothesis has been tested...because no male juniors are being seriously trained in the double pips style. If no one is being trained in the style to begin with, then what is the empirical evidence that such a style fails when put to the test? You say "there's absolutely no chance whatsoever" that it would be possible, and I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering how you can be so confident of that outcome when it hasn't been put to the test. Are you sure its me that's being narcissistic and unreasonable?

 

[Dominikk85]

The only one I can think of is Falck. But like I said in relation to double SP's, I reckon it would be possible to get a few more into the world top 100 if only a few more people would seriously train at it.

You are correct to highlight that there are virtually none at the top level at the moment, but that is almost certainly going to be partly because so few people are training to play in that way, rather than it being wholly due to the style of play being inherently inferior.

The same logic applies to defender's, of course; there are hardly any defenders in the men's top 100, but they are probably NOT under-represented relative to the number of young up-and-coming players that actually train in that style. In fact, it could even be the case that defenders are over-represented in the top 100 relative to the number of people training in that way in comparison to the attacking style. I don't think there's any suggestion that that is the case, but if it were the case it would then be true to say that in some sense the defensive style was actually superior.

It might be possible but I think with the 40mm plastic ball the advantage of SP is kinda gone down somewhat.

The advantage of SP like LGL used was that you can smash flat against massive topspin balls of the opponent because the pip would help to deal with the spin. However the new ball takes on less spin and players also don't try to hit super massive slow spins but instead hit more powerful loop drive kind of shots.

You don't need to SP smash opponent loops because now it is easier to hit a loop kill counter topspin while I think with the old ball that would be a lot more risky.

 

[NetProphet]

Where in post 10 did I state that double SP's could definitely work? Post 10 is almost entirely me responding to Tony and questioning specific claims he made.

I don't feel like I've been given evidence based responses to counter my hypothesis, because I don't feel like my hypothesis has been tested...because no male juniors are being seriously trained in the double pips style. If no one is being trained in the style to begin with, then what is the empirical evidence that such a style fails when put to the test? You say "there's absolutely no chance whatsoever" that it would be possible, and I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering how you can be so confident of that outcome when it hasn't been put to the test. Are you sure its me that's being narcissistic and unreasonable?

I'm not making threads in here to tell everyone that my ideas are the correct ones 😉
The evidence is in the fact that it's a professional sport and in the development of the game over 50 years nobody is doing it!

You're ignoring that it seems, or putting it down to 'oh it just hasn't been tried' but it has been tried, the games used to be played that way.
Why not go on a golf or tennis forum and advocate for wooden clubs and rackets, you'll get the same answer.

You don't feel like you've been given any evidence is why I used the term narcissistic. That's what it is, failure to accept the contrary no matter how obvious it is. But I'm not trying to insult you, I just mean that you seem blinkered on this subject.
Anyway, saying "just top 100" already suggests that this entire notion is flawed and inferior.
What young pro or aspiring pro is going to limit themselves with the ceiling of just top 100?
None. So you need to convince people that this approach could win titles before anyone would be willing to try it and you can't convince that because (back to the start here) it died in the 70s.
So I'll backtrack and pivot a little and look at it from your perspective. Yes, maybe if someone just wants to be top 100 only and never better than that, there's a 1 in a billion chance that it could work. So you are correct. There's a chance.
But to most everyone else looking at it, it's a bit ridiculous 🤷

 

[ViperTableTennis]

I'm not making threads in here to tell everyone that my ideas are the correct ones 😉
The evidence is in the fact that it's a professional sport and in the development of the game over 50 years nobody is doing it!

You're ignoring that it seems, or putting it down to 'oh it just hasn't been tried' but it has been tried, the games used to be played that way.
Why not go on a golf or tennis forum and advocate for wooden clubs and rackets, you'll get the same answer.

You don't feel like you've been given any evidence is why I used the term narcissistic. That's what it is, failure to accept the contrary no matter how obvious it is. But I'm not trying to insult you, I just mean that you seem blinkered on this subject.
Anyway, saying "just top 100" already suggests that this entire notion is flawed and inferior.
What young pro or aspiring pro is going to limit themselves with the ceiling of just top 100?
None. So you need to convince people that this approach could win titles before anyone would be willing to try it and you can't convince that because (back to the start here) it died in the 70s.
So I'll backtrack and pivot a little and look at it from your perspective. Yes, maybe if someone just wants to be top 100 only and never better than that, there's a 1 in a billion chance that it could work. So you are correct. There's a chance.
But to most everyone else looking at it, it's a bit ridiculous 🤷

I'm not making threads here to tell everyone that my ideas are correct either! How on earth have you completely misunderstood my position like that?!?

I've said on multiple occasions that I'm not claiming what I'm saying is 100% correct; I'm simply postulating a hypothesis. Look at what I said in post 5 as an example - "I can't help think that it could be a somewhat viable style if more people tried it". What bit about me thinking it could be a somewhat viable style if more people tried it reads to you as me being arrogant and claiming that what I'm saying is definitely true??? And then in post 25 I said "It's a hypothesis, something to be discussed and potentially tested by the table tennis community; it's not a notion that I firmly believe in and it could be incorrect". How can you possibly interpret me saying "it's not a notion that I firmly believe in and it could be incorrect" as me telling everyone that my ideas are correct?!?!?

I deliberately said top 100 in the men's game because I wanted to talk about the elite level of the sport where we already have a few players that don't use the double-inverted style; from post 5 - "I think it would be a more viable style for the modern game than chopping with LP's - and we still have a small number of those in the top 100". My hypothesis is that double-SP's could be a viable style of play for getting into the men's top 100. If you want to respond by saying its not a style that will win titles then you might be correct, but such a response doesn't directly engage with my hypothesis; it exaggerates my hypothesis in order to make it easier to challenge.

I appreciate your backtracking, but I still think you're way off the mark with your plucked-out-of-thin-air 1 in a billion statistic. There are already one sided pimples players in the men's top 100...I do not think the odds would jump from 1 in 1 to 1 in a billion simply by having pimples on both sides! But I can't say that for certain...because it's not been properly tested (and probably wont be).

 

[NetProphet]

You're on and off the fence so many times here.
Ok, you think it's possible. There's no harm in thinking that and pretty much ignoring everything that strongly shows that you are so so so so so so likely to be incorrect.
You have a hunch and nobody can convince you otherwise, fair enough.
Here, I have an idea too.
Do you think if millions and millions of people practiced playing TT with hardback copies of George Orwell's 1984, do you think someone could make it to the top 100?
I think that if enough people tried it, eventually, one of them would make it. Its just a notion.
Can you prove that I'm wrong?

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

I don't feel like I've been given evidence based responses to counter my hypothesis, because I don't feel like my hypothesis has been tested...because no male juniors are being seriously trained in the double pips style. If no one is being trained in the style to begin with, then what is the empirical evidence that such a style fails when put to the test?

how do you know?
based on the UK?

how much data do you have?

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

You're on and off the fence so many times here.
Ok, you think it's possible. There's no harm in thinking that and pretty much ignoring everything that strongly shows that you are so so so so so so likely to be incorrect.
You have a hunch and nobody can convince you otherwise, fair enough.
Here, I have an idea too.
Do you think if millions and millions of people practiced playing TT with hardback copies of George Orwell's 1984, do you think someone could make it to the top 100?
I think that if enough people tried it, eventually, one of them would make it. Its just a notion.
Can you prove that I'm wrong?

i think many of them can't even make it past the city, yet alone the state/province, so how in the heck would they get into national setup, then to challenge the world and to win, and to get into top 100.

even with double inverted, the odds are just way too low (from city to top 100, is maybe 100000 serious juniors if not more. (Taiwan has around 5000~10000 juniors boys training (age from say 6 to 18) and its a damn small country with 23 million people, 100k now sounds a bit too small of a number haha)

and now OP thinking of just give some serious training and you will have a double SP top 100 in mens....
I think women's is still possible, but speed of mens? you can't even have a modern defender chopper that can survive, yet a long a style so limited as a double SP player that can't even move into away from the table

 

[ViperTableTennis]

how do you know?
based on the UK?

how much data do you have?

I don't have any data; that's why what I'm saying is a hypothesis and that I openly admit that my hypothesis might be wrong. If you have some concrete evidence that will definitively settle the matter then please share it...but based upon what you've posted so far it doesn't appear that you do; instead you appear to only have a counter-hypothesis.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

You're on and off the fence so many times here.
Ok, you think it's possible. There's no harm in thinking that and pretty much ignoring everything that strongly shows that you are so so so so so so likely to be incorrect.
You have a hunch and nobody can convince you otherwise, fair enough.
Here, I have an idea too.
Do you think if millions and millions of people practiced playing TT with hardback copies of George Orwell's 1984, do you think someone could make it to the top 100?
I think that if enough people tried it, eventually, one of them would make it. Its just a notion.
Can you prove that I'm wrong?

On and off the fence? What are you talking about? I made a tentative hypothesis and openly admitted that I could be wrong on it, and then for some unknown reason you got your knickers in a twist over it and started incorrectly claiming that I've been making bold narcissistic claims that I can't back up with evidence. You've either innocently misread my posts or you are trying to deliberately misrepresent them. Either way your comments treat what I said unfairly.

 

[NetProphet]

On and off the fence? What are you talking about? I made a tentative hypothesis and openly admitted that I could be wrong on it, and then for some unknown reason you got your knickers in a twist over it and started incorrectly claiming that I've been making bold narcissistic claims that I can't back up with evidence. You've either innocently misread my posts or you are trying to deliberately misrepresent them. Either way your comments treat what I said unfairly.

On and off the fence because your yes stance is characterised with a very on the fence "oh, it's just an hypothesis that can't be proven wrong. But you ignore that you have followed up your original questions with some very off the fence statements, it's just because of this, it's just because of that

I reckon it would be possible to get a few more into the world top 100 if only a few more people would seriously train at it.

there are virtually none at the top level at the moment, but that is almost certainly going to be partly because so few people are training to play in that way, rather than it being wholly due to the style of play being inherently inferior.

It is not just because nobody is doing it.
Its because nobody is doing it because it was done decades ago and died because it cannot live in the current TT environment.
Why are there no dinosaurs?
This reminds me of a discussion with a friend decades ago where he was convinced (utterly convinced) that Jurassic Park could happen! It was an hypothesis, granted not his original one but from a book, but I couldn't prove him wrong.
Or maybe I say "let's try steamships, they'd be amazing in today's world".
And then I ignore everyone who tells me it was done for decades over a century ago but shipping technology had moved on. Or ignore that even Olympic was converted from coal and steam to oil and diesel, you get my drift.
Basically, to borrow from my shipping metaphor, the lack of steamships IS the evidence but your making a circular argument out of it (as is your perogative) to say, no, there should be steamships so we can check it out.

And then you're surprised that people are less than enthused to continue in debate about your 'original' hypothesis.
Hypothesis is a kind word at this stage.
Can't we just agree that it's an outdated idea?

 

[ViperTableTennis]

and now OP thinking of just give some serious training and you will have a double SP top 100 in mens....
I think women's is still possible, but speed of mens? you can't even have a modern defender chopper that can survive, yet a long a style so limited as a double SP player that can't even move into away from the table

Tony, my position is much more tentative that you're trying to make out. I'm not saying "just give some serious training and you will have a double SP top 100 in men's". What I'm saying is that if we had an environment where a lot more players were seriously training in this style from a young age, then it might be possible for some of them to break into the top 100. Like I said in an earlier post, my rationale for thinking that is that I think (again I think, I'm not making a claim to certainty!) that double SP might be a more viable style that being a defensive chopper using LP's...and we already have a small number of defensive choppers using LP's in the men's top 100! If some one like Filus can survive in the men's top 100, then I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that a double SP player could do the same. I'd also question your suggestion that a double SP player can't move away from the table. I've seen players chop with SP's away from the table in they need to. Sure, that might not be as effective as LP chopping...but there are players out there that actively choose SP's over LP's for a chopping game, so who knows!

 

[_ak]

how many single sided SP player has made it viable in the pro circuit? or say top 100 as you put it.

CNT before Sweden beaten them mercilessly in 2000

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Tony, my position is much more tentative that you're trying to make out. I'm not saying "just give some serious training and you will have a double SP top 100 in men's". What I'm saying is that if we had an environment where a lot more players were seriously training in this style from a young age, then it might be possible for some of them to break into the top 100. Like I said in an earlier post, my rationale for thinking that is that I think (again I think, I'm not making a claim to certainty!) that double SP might be a more viable style that being a defensive chopper using LP's...and we already have a small number of defensive choppers using LP's in the men's top 100! If some one like Filus can survive in the men's top 100, then I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that a double SP player could do the same. I'd also question your suggestion that a double SP player can't move away from the table. I've seen players chop with SP's away from the table in they need to. Sure, that might not be as effective as LP chopping...but there are players out there that actively choose SP's over LP's for a chopping game, so who knows!

double sp is just plain silly, it is no different to single sided cpen today. so i'm not going to try and confuse you any further.

for singe side sp and lp chopper, do you know there are thousands of them in training
but the dynamics does not suite them, so the chance for them to survive is more difficult than double inverted.

because you see 1 sp user or 1 lp user in the top 100, does not mean there is only 5 juniors in training.....

and now you want sp attacking to become a sp chopper... you really all over the show haha

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

CNT before Sweden beaten them mercilessly in 2000

have you ever thought, one of the best SP users is teaching everyone to become better inverted players.
his name is liu guoliang
lol