My EJ journey hasn't gotten me anywhere until I returned home

[Tyce]

You could simulate a net with a strip of cardboard set up on the FH/BH line and do it from a normal mounting point.
It doesn't have to be perfect for it to work

 

[NetProphet]

You could simulate a net with a strip of cardboard set up on the FH/BH line and do it from a normal mounting point.
It doesn't have to be perfect for it to work

 

[Tyce]

I love hitting a net.

 

[NetProphet]

One statement I did not like is-Your rating doesn't lie. I disagree. You can improve greatly without a significant increase in rating, particularly at middle levels. Rating is based on wins and losses-not how well you play.

I believe players can 'think' they've improved greatly without an improvement in rating.
His entire story is about how he messed around with setup after setup for 1.5 years which led to no improvement in his game which he can verify by the level he still plays at borne out of the match results he has.

Maybe you missed this bit
I did learn things. Better posture, footwork, match mentality, and even my attacking game went up. But my consistency took a dunk. I couldn't execute many of the things I learned consistently.

But how else does anyone measure their improvement if it's not measured against other Players in playing matches?
Staying at home and looping for months v a robot might improve your FH loop for that exact ball with that exact spin to that exact position on the table when you know where it's going but it doesn't improve you as a player who has to navigate the absolute randomness of matches v unpredictable opponents who are actively seeking to make things difficult for you.
There was a member recently saying he had lost a match to an inferior opponent.
If the opponent beats you then they are (or have been in this instance) superior to you in match play even, if one believes they are more stylish or have a better FH loop or whatever - you still lost.
And winning or losing is what proves the level.
Some folk are wilfully blind and some are deluded about their level irrespective of results, that's just how it is.
But the OP isn't one of them and has concluded the way fwd is with one setup that allows more consistency to achieve better results and become a better player.
My take on it anyway.

 

[sebi]

I believe players can 'think' they've improved greatly without an improvement in rating.
His entire story is about how he messed around with setup after setup for 1.5 years which led to no improvement in his game which he can verify by the level he still plays at borne out of the match results he has.

Maybe you missed this bit
I did learn things. Better posture, footwork, match mentality, and even my attacking game went up. But my consistency took a dunk. I couldn't execute many of the things I learned consistently.

But how else does anyone measure their improvement if it's not measured against other Players in playing matches?
Staying at home and looping for months v a robot might improve your FH loop for that exact ball with that exact spin to that exact position on the table when you know where it's going but it doesn't improve you as a player who has to navigate the absolute randomness of matches v unpredictable opponents who are actively seeking to make things difficult for you.
There was a member recently saying he had lost a match to an inferior opponent.
If the opponent beats you then they are (or have been in this instance) superior to you in match play even, if one believes they are more stylish or have a better FH loop or whatever - you still lost.
And winning or losing is what proves the level.
Some folk are wilfully blind and some are deluded about their level irrespective of results, that's just how it is.
But the OP isn't one of them and has concluded the way fwd is with one setup that allows more consistency to achieve better results and become a better player.
My take on it anyway.

Traing with a robot is the same as training multiball. It gives you the chance to improve footwork, technique and placement. Thhere are restrictions but a robot is a very good tool.

 

[PenHoldSandro]

which one floats better?

Golden Vis

 

[Gozo Zyreruna]

Golden Vis

srsly tbh, I'll stop at sk seven. If it is good for Kristian Karlsson, a pro on tours, it is definitely good for Gman.

 

[piligrim]

srsly tbh, I'll stop at sk seven. If it is good for Kristian Karlsson, a pro on tours, it is definitely good for Gman.

what fit to one person not necessarily will fit others

 

[Gozo Zyreruna]

what fit to one person not necessarily will fit others

all shall be known by next week...

 

[Tyce]

I took the challenge to use my Appelgren for tonight's training. I gotta say, if I'm forced to play matches with it, I will probably manage. Placement was insanely easy, even with the activation of the blade being quite different from what I have been playing lately. I don't remember putting balls on the white line that easily ever.

If I have to point out anything, I found it hard to hit through the FH with Rakza 7. Not due to timing, this blade is engraved in my muscle memory, but simply because the blade is too weak to complement my weakish FH technique. C1 was more reliable to use on the FH so if anything, it just works better with softer rubber than I'm using now. Vega Europe on FH and DF on BH should fit really well if I ever decide to revisit this idea. I also just realised I always used soft FH rubbers in the past, probably because it works on the blade.

After the training session I picked up the Innerforce ALC and it was so natural to transition to that despite only having played it once before. They have the same balance, very similar touch, but of course a different power curve. It is much easier to hit through G1 with the extra backing of the more solid structure.

Conclusion, I could make the Appelgren work perfectly fine for my level. It's no powerhouse but I have played good, consistent attacks with it despite having the issue of a rubber that's a bit too hard for comfort on the blade.

The humble thin, slow 5ply is absolutely not useless or powerless when combined with fitting rubber. It encourages you to play your attacks absolutely on the line rather than wild and fast, something many, many people could learn from.

 

[Doppelschlag]

I took the challenge to use my Appelgren for tonight's training. I gotta say, if I'm forced to play matches with it, I will probably manage.

Conclusion, I could make the Appelgren work perfectly fine for my level. It's no powerhouse but I have played good, consistent attacks with it despite having the issue of a rubber that's a bit too hard for comfort on the blade.

The humble thin, slow 5ply is absolutely not useless or powerless when combined with fitting rubber. It encourages you to play your attacks absolutely on the line rather than wild and fast, something many, many people could learn from.

I often read on this forum that a 5-ply allwood blade is the ideal starting point.

At the same time, I just as frequently see the opposite claim: that in the era of 40+ balls, the classic 5-ply models of the past—Yasaka Sweden Extra, Stiga Allround Classic, Donic Appelgren Allplay, Persson Power Allround—are simply outdated. According to this line of reasoning, one should move to a 7-ply or at least a noticeably stiffer 5-ply. (Some even go further and argue (including some coaches) that with 40+ balls, some form of carbon construction is essentially mandatory …)

For me, this raises the broader question: what is a reasonable »baseline« blade for modern balls? In other words, what constitutes the lowest practical entry level in terms of construction and stiffness today?

I am genuinely interested in how people think about this—both in principle and in [own] practice—when defining what a modern allround blade should be.

 

[Tyce]

I often read on this forum that a 5-ply allwood blade is the ideal starting point.

At the same time, I just as frequently see the opposite claim: that in the era of 40+ balls, the classic 5-ply models of the past—Yasaka Sweden Extra, Stiga Allround Classic, Donic Appelgren Allplay, Persson Power Allround—are simply outdated. According to this line of reasoning, one should move to a 7-ply or at least a noticeably stiffer 5-ply. (Some even go further and argue (including some coaches) that with 40+ balls, some form of carbon construction is essentially mandatory …)

For me, this raises the broader question: what is a reasonable »baseline« blade for modern balls? In other words, what constitutes the lowest practical entry level in terms of construction and stiffness today?

I am genuinely interested in how people think about this—both in principle and in [own] practice—when defining what a modern allround blade should be.

For allround play, you need to be able to speed up, slow down, execute precision and spin in all directions.
You can't do all of that easily and reliably unless you go to the middle ground of blade properties, so still a medium thickness 5ply (YSE) or 5+2 (Waldner Senso carbon) is ideal for that.

... Except that Allround play is pretty much dead. Everything revolves around teaching loops, power, attacking, speed. The only people who are still stuck playing endless push and placement rallies are the older ones with decades of experience with exactly that. New players learn to drive, then loop, and serve/receive. Why? Because every long ball can be attacked and most short balls can be, too.

 

[Lazer]

I often read on this forum that a 5-ply allwood blade is the ideal starting point.

At the same time, I just as frequently see the opposite claim: that in the era of 40+ balls, the classic 5-ply models of the past—Yasaka Sweden Extra, Stiga Allround Classic, Donic Appelgren Allplay, Persson Power Allround—are simply outdated. According to this line of reasoning, one should move to a 7-ply or at least a noticeably stiffer 5-ply. (Some even go further and argue (including some coaches) that with 40+ balls, some form of carbon construction is essentially mandatory …)

For me, this raises the broader question: what is a reasonable »baseline« blade for modern balls? In other words, what constitutes the lowest practical entry level in terms of construction and stiffness today?

I am genuinely interested in how people think about this—both in principle and in [own] practice—when defining what a modern allround blade should be.

If You are a top elite player then maybe yes... But for mortals it's a hunk of horse sh-t. I wouldn't recommend something as soft as a Donic Appelgren allplay (too flexy imo) but thats what my club recommends to starting kids in my club.

But a 5ply all wood in the region of 6mm is an excellent starting point in my book.

Cheers
L-zr

 

[Doppelschlag]

For allround play, you need to be able to speed up, slow down, execute precision and spin in all directions.
You can't do all of that easily and reliably unless you go to the middle ground of blade properties, so still a medium thickness 5ply (YSE) or 5+2 (Waldner Senso carbon) is ideal for that.

... Except that Allround play is pretty much dead. Everything revolves around teaching loops, power, attacking, speed. The only people who are still stuck playing endless push and placement rallies are the older ones with decades of experience with exactly that. New players learn to drive, then loop, and serve/receive. Why? Because every long ball can be attacked and most short balls can be, too.

If You are a top elite player then maybe yes... But for mortals it's a hunk of horse sh-t. I wouldn't recommend something as soft as a Donic Appelgren allplay (too flexy imo) but thats what my club recommends to starting kids in my club.

But a 5ply all wood in the region of 6mm is an excellent starting point in my book.

Cheers
L-zr

That’s what I thought, also. So is 7ply the new 5ply in terms of starter blade? I don’t see much talk about pure wood 7ply, compared to 5ply? Is it because they are normally thicker and heavier? Tibhar Bernadette Szöcs Signature 1 is a 7ply used in real pro life though. On the other side, Hana Goda uses the Cybershape Wood, a hefty 5ply.

I guess there is sound reasoning behind a blade such as Xiom Hugo HAL, a 5+2 that is supposedly (TTGearLab) thin as a 5ply, has the feel of a 7ply and control of carbon.

(On a personal note, I am right now agonizing, considering either a 6mm 5ply – that is reported to be good, fast, controllable, but having an extremely deep hold – vs a stiffer 7ply. or the Hugo HAL …)

 

[Lazer]

That’s what I thought, also. So is 7ply the new 5ply in terms of starter blade? I don’t see much talk about pure wood 7ply, compared to 5ply? Is it because they are normally thicker and heavier? Tibhar Bernadette Szöcs Signature 1 is a 7ply used in real pro life though. On the other side, Hana Goda uses the Cybershape Wood, a hefty 5ply.

I guess there is sound reasoning behind a blade such as Xiom Hugo HAL, a 5+2 that is supposedly (TTGearLab) thin as a 5ply, has the feel of a 7ply and control of carbon.

(On a personal note, I am right now agonizing, considering either a 6mm 5ply – that is reported to be good, fast, controllable, but having an extremely deep hold – vs a stiffer 7ply. or the Hugo HAL …)

A 7ply is generally stiffer and heavier. If You want a slower outer carbon I would recommend Donic Appelgren WC 89
or Nittaku S-CZ. Those two are very similar, built by Soulspin in Germany. Even though they are outer they are quite soft and great feeling to play with. The only thing is that the top layer is a little sensitive for ripping when removing old rubber, has to be done really carefully.

Cheers
L-zr

 

[Tyce]

If You are a top elite player then maybe yes... But for mortals it's a hunk of horse sh-t. I wouldn't recommend something as soft as a Donic Appelgren allplay (too flexy imo) but thats what my club recommends to starting kids in my club.

But a 5ply all wood in the region of 6mm is an excellent starting point in my book.

Cheers
L-zr

Yeah the 5.2mm of an Appelgren Allplay just won't let you learn to use power.
There's lots of blades around 5.6-5.8 that are a lot more usable while still retaining a flexible character. 6+ just doesn't work for me.