I need a clear answer, when receiving, when does the ball has LESS spin? Off the bounce? Or after it reached its apex?

[PhoenixTT]

I had a look at the tennis forums and how they understood angular momentum. It was even more confusing over there. Maybe Trisolarian photons rather than physics at work here.

 

[canonFH]

And do you just magically know what to practice?
As in, no info about the 'why' needed, you just know 'what' to practice without any explanation given or needed?
The why if what helps peoples understanding of the game and feeds alot of things from analyzing the opponent and forming tactics to knowing where to focus your own training for improvement.
Your post suggests the explanation and understanding of things is pointless, I couldn't disagree more.
And if you think that top players don't understand the physics of the game without an engineering degree I'd say your completely crazy!

I do not suggest that explanation and understanding of things is pointless. I'm merely saying that the pros may not be good at explaining things.

Without an engineering degree, it would indeed be difficult for a pro to give you a clear equation of how the angular momentum of the ball changes while it travels and bounces.

Hence they have to resort to words like feeling and control and low/high spin which may or may not have the same implications to the viewer, many of whom would have never gotten the chance to see a high level player up close to really feel and hence be able to visualise the quality of their play.

Hence, I said that we should take the pros technique as the most reasonable one and try to figure out the why ourselves.

 

[Der_Echte]

The banana had an upward element it is hard to add topspin to a ball that isnt falling. There are many reasons to adapt or take the ball earlier or later but less spin is a confusing way of communicating any of them.

True. Banana easier with ball falling, straight flip better for top of bounce impact point.

With the banana flip (bat tip is DOWN) it is so much better to allow the ball to drop, the more the better.

WHY?

The tip down banana flip has the moving upwards a lot... so if ball is falling, it has downward kinetic energy... so the upward bat plus down ball is more energy to rub on the rubber, thus generating easier spin, which is safe landing percentage.

 

[Der_Echte]

I would go back to NL's earlier post where he advocates reading spin and choosing points of impact over knowing when spin is less.

On serve receive for an example, against underspin, WAY better to take ball soon after the bounce.

Why?

Right after the bounce, there is max upward energy... which means you do not need to lift the bat so much if not at all. This makes that part of receive easier.

The same right after bounce impact point also makes it easier to generate underspin without even moving the bat.

Why?

The upward energy of ball rubs against rubber and turns that energy into underspin.

Wanna see for yourself? Hold bat with tip touching table and hold bat still. toss the ball downward just before the bat... watch ball shoot out with underspin and bounce backward after bounce.

The difficulty of course is reading the spin, the bounce point, and the moment of bounce... and having the courage to step in and make the play.

Figuring out those things is a better focus of learning energy.

 

[Der_Echte]

To go into a deeper answer about when to receive the underspin serve ball... with total disregard to spin...

There are inherent disadvantages to taking the ball very late (when it is assumed spin is less).

If you wait until last moment to impact the ball, here are some baddies you put upon yourself.

- you reduced possible wide angles greatly, like exponentially
- you DOUBLED or TRIPLED the reaction time to opponent (think opponent now has a half meter each way to see the ball)
- it is much more difficult to control your touch... both in terms of handling spin and controlling short and long distance
- you take away your option of fast deep underspin push, or at a minimum make it way more difficult

 

[Der_Echte]

So the impact of taking the ball really late, it that you increase your difficulty/error rate trying to make fine, precise return and you make it way easier/predictable for opponent to attack you.

My main point in articulating all these nuances is that is it REALLY worth it to wait to the last moment to receive that underspin serve JUST BECAUSE you want to have the least possible spin?

You prolly mis-read the spin so you screwed anyway... or you read it well, step in with courage and give yourself much better opportunities for higher percentages and quality.

 

[Lula]

Haha you make this way more difficult than it is

 

[NetProphet]

I do not suggest that explanation and understanding of things is pointless. I'm merely saying that the pros may not be good at explaining things.

Without an engineering degree, it would indeed be difficult for a pro to give you a clear equation of how the angular momentum of the ball changes while it travels and bounces.

Hence they have to resort to words like feeling and control and low/high spin which may or may not have the same implications to the viewer, many of whom would have never gotten the chance to see a high level player up close to really feel and hence be able to visualise the quality of their play.

Hence, I said that we should take the pros technique as the most reasonable one and try to figure out the why ourselves.

I hear your point on it.
But an engineering degree isn't needed to convert concepts of more or less spin or to encourage or convince people to try to feel more through their hands. Indeed, the scientific explanation would be lost on most of us anyway who wouldn't have the capacity to understand complicated equations.
I myself find it fascinating time and again that high level pros can offer many many good reasons as to the why, when doing things, whereas you has labelled this in your first post as 'dubious at best'.
This is not my experience at all.
Not all good players make good coaches of course and there are probably plenty of pros who wouldn't be good at helping amateurs to develop their games but my (admittedly limited) experience is that these pros know plenty about the why when it comes to doing things.
Just watching and listening to almost every player who's been on TTD giving a few tips or any of the pros who offer advice on a TT channel tells me they have a wealth of understanding and knowledge about the why, much of it being levels beyond anything that I may be able to incorporate into my game.
And another reason is, just because the pros spend yrs practicing like robots doesn't mean that they are robots. Most of them obsess on the why before committing to anything, especially if it's something new that will bring changes to their game because they're gonna make sure they know the why so they're not wasting their time.
They why still fascinates and interests me, even if I cannot do the things.
In fact being told the why of things is what helps to most convince me and inspire me to train harder, armed with more info and belief that I am practicing the correct things!

 

[NextLevel]

Another "less spin the later you take the ball" theory propagator:

 

[StreamOfWater]

Another "less spin the later you take the ball" theory propagator:

What theory? Surely no one is ignorant enough to think that the ball doesn't lose spin, lol. It's a scientific fact that the ball spins less "the later you take the ball", otherwise it wouldn't make sense

 

[NextLevel]

What theory? Surely no one is ignorant enough to think that the ball doesn't lose spin, lol. It's a scientific fact that the ball spins less "the later you take the ball", otherwise it wouldn't make sense

Okay - the whole thread exists, read it and if you have any objections, feel free to remake them in the context of the thread's arguments/posts. Not a fan of people coming in late to a discussion and pretending to be experts without addressing what has already been discussed. Thank you.

 

[KTableTennis]

Ladies, ladies, enough arguing

 

[StreamOfWater]

Okay - the whole thread exists, read it and if you have any objections, feel free to remake them in the context of the thread's arguments/posts. Not a fan of people coming in late to a discussion and pretending to be experts without addressing what has already been discussed. Thank you.

Sure, so be it. I am not contributing to this pseudoscience. Physics exist for a reason. Thank you as well

 

[KTableTennis]

Chill man

 

[NextLevel]

Sure, so be it. I am not contributing to this pseudoscience. Physics exist for a reason. Thank you as well

Sure. Anyone who reads the thread will see it is anything but. You are entitled to your own opinions obviously but dont confuse them with an understanding of what is being claimed here. People can do completely correct things on the basis of misleading explanations and that is what this thread is about.

 

[KTableTennis]

Sure, so be it. I am not contributing to this pseudoscience. Physics exist for a reason. Thank you as well

Balls of fury

 

[sebi]

Another "less spin the later you take the ball" theory propagator:

I am not a big fan of hemming hu. Yeah he was at the Olympics but only because Australia has two seeds. And Australia is pretty weak tabeltennis wise. I dont think he would have participated for any other country.
He says he is a need how he glues is rubber then absolutely butchers it.
And his coaching is pretty old and not up to date.

 

[NextLevel]

I am not a big fan of hemming hu. Yeah he was at the Olympics but only because Australia has two seeds. And Australia is pretty weak tabeltennis wise. I dont think he would have participated for any other country.
He says he is a need how he glues is rubber then absolutely butchers it.
And his coaching is pretty old and not up to date.

I broadly agree though for me, it is less about playing level and more about personality. That said people who do financially well in life have all kinds of personalities. And being nice is not necessarily good for success (some would say quite the opposite but I wouldn't go that far).

 

[igorponger]

DON'T BE LIKE THE CENTIPEDE.

Yes, looking too deeply into one's game biomechanics is a dangerous thing anyway, and more so for those seeking to improve in table tennis. Table tennis is all about acquired and subconscious reflexes and "muscular memory" rather than abstract knowledge of the ball dynamics and muscular neurology.

The Centipede's Dilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On May 23, 1889, the poem appeared in an article by British zoologist Ray Lankester,
published in the scientific journal Nature,[5] which discussed the work of photographer Eadweard Muybridge
in capturing the motion of animals: "For my own part," wrote Lankester,
"I should greatly like to apply Mr. Muybridge's cameras, or a similar set of batteries, to the investigation of a phenomenon more puzzling
even than that of 'the galloping horse'. I allude to the problem of 'the running centipede'".
Lankester finished the article on a fanciful note by imagining the "disastrous results in the way of perplexity" that could result from such an investigation,
quoting the poem and mentioning that the author was unknown to him or to the friend who sent it to him.
It has since been variously attributed to specific authors, but without convincing evidence, and often appears under the title "The Centipede's Dilemma".

The version in the article is:

 

[songdavid98]