From what level on does the right "modern" style matter?

[Dominikk85]

I was wondering about this? At the pro level a lot of styles have gone exctinct like Jpen, one sided penholder, defense only with no real counter attack.

And even among two winged shake hand loopers certain styles are getting rarer for example kreanga style far away from table loopers who take big swings or also soft loopers are getting rarer and modern style is more harimoto style close to table power looping with compact strokes.

At lower levels however plenty styles can work as long they are executed well.

At what level does having a "modern style" start to matter and antiquated styles like pips one sided penhold or defense only no counter attack chopper start to become a real disadvantage?

 

[ThePongCommenter]

Probably not until 2650+ USATT at the minimum.

However, that assumes that the player has already gotten to their level with a "non-modern" style, if someone is starting their journey in 2026 it is recommend to instill the "modern game" fundamentals to increase their rate of progress and chance of reaching higher and higher levels.

 

[songdavid98]

It matters at every level.

It’s just less noticeable at amateur level because it is overshadowed by blunders everywhere.

But it is wrong to say that just because it is overshadowed, it doesn’t matter.

Of course, once there’s fewer blunders, the disadvantages of an outdated style become a LOT more noticeable. But even club level tt players can exploit an outdated style.

It is similar to playing with doubled isolated pawns in chess. It is a disadvantage at every level. But compared to accidentally losing your queen, one might say “it doesn’t matter”. But even club level chess players can exploit doubled iso pawns.

 

[doppelmoral]

It matters at every level.

It’s just less noticeable at amateur level because it is overshadowed by blunders everywhere.

But it is wrong to say that just because it is overshadowed, it doesn’t matter.

Of course, once there’s fewer blunders, the disadvantages of an outdated style become a LOT more noticeable. But even club level tt players can exploit an outdated style.

It is similar to playing with doubled isolated pawns in chess. It is a disadvantage at every level. But compared to accidentally losing your queen, one might say “it doesn’t matter”. But even club level chess players can exploit doubled iso pawns.

appreciate the chess analogy

 

[NextLevel]

I was wondering about this? At the pro level a lot of styles have gone exctinct like Jpen, one sided penholder, defense only with no real counter attack.

And even among two winged shake hand loopers certain styles are getting rarer for example kreanga style far away from table loopers who take big swings or also soft loopers are getting rarer and modern style is more harimoto style close to table power looping with compact strokes.

At lower levels however plenty styles can work as long they are executed well.

At what level does having a "modern style" start to matter and antiquated styles like pips one sided penhold or defense only no counter attack chopper start to become a real disadvantage?

The tradeoffs always exist, but if you mean a disadvantage that is hard to overcome, that's about how big a disadvantage cannot be overcome by athleticism and game reading skills and that comes down to the individual practitioner and what weapons they can use to hide their limitations. Realize the close/mid distance to the table topspin game requires you to cover shorter distances and gives the opponent less time to react to the ball. With the old ball, the compensation was that you could give the ball a significant amount of spin from mid/long distance that would still create some threat. However, with the new ball, this energy isn't as significant a deterrent as it used to be. Off beat styles often give the practitioner the advantage of unfamiliarity but one of the advantages of close/mid distance topspin is that any long ball can be attacked with a topspin, one just has to evaluate how to swing and adjust once one makes a correct read of the ball. But in the modern game, most styles incorporate some elements of the modern style to remain viable as a player gets better. Even lobbers and defenders serve and attack lol... so as long as you can incorporate some modern game elements into your style, you can play any style you want to as high a level you want, the disadvantages don't really matter vs how good you get winning points with your style.

 

[Dominikk85]

Probably not until 2650+ USATT at the minimum.

However, that assumes that the player has already gotten to their level with a "non-modern" style, if someone is starting their journey in 2026 it is recommend to instill the "modern game" fundamentals to increase their rate of progress and chance of reaching higher and higher levels.

Yeah I was more talking about when it on average becomes an issue that can slow you down and makes improvement harder to achieve not what an outlier can achieve at maximum.

Of course he zhi wen can still beat most two winged SH loopers at over 60 but that doesn't mean everyone can reach that level with 1 sided SP penhold.

 

[ThePongCommenter]

Yeah I was more talking about when it on average becomes an issue that can slow you down and makes improvement harder to achieve not what an outlier can achieve at maximum.

Of course he zhi wen can still beat most two winged SH loopers at over 60 but that doesn't mean everyone can reach that level with 1 sided SP penhold.

In that case, much earlier. songdavid's comment is what I would say too.

 

[passifid]

Depends on age and levels.
The crux of this issue is that it is probably the most demanding style in terms of practise as the fast drive looping needs much more precision than brush looping to land on the table. Also two winged looping requires more physical ability than predominantly one sided gameplay.

As such you have to think where is the modern style more effective, i disagree it is at all levels as said above
for example at lower levels it is a huge detriment as if you cannot drive a backspin all it takes is a push to beat you.

I would argue it is more about coaching, the modern style matters if you do proper coaching as you can maintain the footwork and level needed to use its high skill floor

 

[Lando]

Depends on age and levels.
The crux of this issue is that it is probably the most demanding style in terms of practise as the fast drive looping needs much more precision than brush looping to land on the table. Also two winged looping requires more physical ability than predominantly one sided gameplay.

As such you have to think where is the modern style more effective, i disagree it is at all levels as said above
for example at lower levels it is a huge detriment as if you cannot drive a backspin all it takes is a push to beat you.

I would argue it is more about coaching, the modern style matters if you do proper coaching as you can maintain the footwork and level needed to use its high skill floor

RSM would disagree with the physicality part lol

 

[NextLevel]

RSM would disagree with the physicality part lol

We have to be careful when using the way the game was played and equipment in 2004 to discuss how the game can be played today. Quality doesn't have the effect today that it used to have then. As Timo said, the new balls are too perfect. Moreover, the banana flick would put huge amounts of pressure on RSM's game. You can't play the modern game without a real backhand topspin. The guy was a freak, but single attacks don't have the same weight they used to and the serve return options are now more varied and aggressive. The closest thing to RSM today (WCQ) still needs to play off both wings.

 

[lightspin]

Agree 100% with NextLevel. A player could get away with a weak backhand ages ago. Now after serving if you have a weak backhand, the receiver can cause you massive trouble with a banana flick if they want to. It is physically impossible to cover the table entirely with the forehand these days.

 

[b3N]

I don't think it's about style. I think it's probably more mechanics. I remember Li Jao beat a prime Zhu Yuling in her 40s/50s. Fu Yu was still winning titles in Europe in her 40s. Kaii Konishi (Yoshida) won the Europe Cup with his team. Nobody would have said Noshad could play at the level he does. Ni has beat high level players. Loads of people would have dismissed Aruna with his backhand and said he can't possibly cover the table with the forehand. Many would have said Kim Kum-Yong's style is too outdated to beat China's top attackers. Moon Hyun-Jung came out of retirement to play pro in Korea - she was MVP in the league (only a couple years ago). But all these did it, all with the new ball. I think understanding the new ball and modern mechanics are crucially important, but past that, what's to say a faster Kaii Yoshida in his 20s couldn't compete today?
The truth is the probability of finding a player who can play it on *that* high level is so comparatively rare, that it would be too expensive for a national association to justify training a large amount of players in that style. China have a bit of a luxury here, as they have such a large pool they can experiment a lot more.
If Liu Ziyang progresses to the A team it would certainly shut some people up but not all. There'll always be naysayers unfortunately and coaches who can only imagine what they see.
It would be an interesting conversation to have with Yoo Nam-Kyu, Liu Guoliang and others what the conversations exactly were. But I think it's more cost, not feasibility.
Even playing pro J-Pen at 40 in Korea is a win imo!

 

[b3N]

I don't think it's about style. I think it's probably more mechanics. I remember Li Jao beat a prime Zhu Yuling in her 50s. Fu Yu was still winning titles in Europe in her 40s. Kaii Konishi (Yoshida) won the Europe Cup with his team. Nobody would have said Noshad could play at the level he does. Ni has beat high level players. Loads of people would have dismissed Aruna with his backhand and said he can't possibly cover the table with the forehand. Many would have said Kim Kum-Yong's style is too outdated to beat China's top attackers. Moon Hyun-Jung came out of retirement to play pro in Korea - she was MVP in the league (only a couple years ago). But all these did it, all with the new ball. I think understanding the new ball and modern mechanics are crucially important, but past that, what's to say a faster Kaii Yoshida in his 20s couldn't compete today?
The truth is the probability of finding a player who can play it on *that* high level is so comparatively rare, that it would be too expensive for a national association to justify training a large amount of players in that style. China have a bit of a luxury here, as they have such a large pool they can experiment a lot more.
If Liu Yizang progresses to the A team it would certainly shut some people up but not all. There'll always be naysayers unfortunately and coaches who can only imagine what they see.
It would be an interesting conversation to have with Yoo Nam-Kyu, Liu Guoliang and others what the conversations exactly were. But I think it's more cost, not feasibility.
Even playing pro J-Pen at 40 in Korea is a win imo!

Sorry for giving so many examples lol.
It got too long.

 

[MatsushimaAlc]

Agree 100% with NextLevel. A player could get away with a weak backhand ages ago. Now after serving if you have a weak backhand, the receiver can cause you massive trouble with a banana flick if they want to. It is physically impossible to cover the table entirely with the forehand these days.

You can still get by with tricks and good predictions. Just look at Truls from a couple of years ago, he was able to beat everyone except for like the top 3 chinese players without a stable backhand

 

[Lando]

We have to be careful when using the way the game was played and equipment in 2004 to discuss how the game can be played today. Quality doesn't have the effect today that it used to have then. As Timo said, the new balls are too perfect. Moreover, the banana flick would put huge amounts of pressure on RSM's game. You can't play the modern game without a real backhand topspin. The guy was a freak, but single attacks don't have the same weight they used to and the serve return options are now more varied and aggressive. The closest thing to RSM today (WCQ) still needs to play off both wings.

Footwork/physical ability is the only way 1 sided penhold is viable today. It hasn't changed.

 

[Dominikk85]

Footwork/physical ability is the only way 1 sided penhold is viable today. It hasn't changed.

What about he zhi wen and nicht xia liang? They were not winning medals anymore but still played at a top50 level a couple years ago at a very high age.

I'm not saying this style is not limiting but it seems that smart one sided pips penholders can get to a pretty good level (i still of course wouldn't recommend that style to a talented kid).

I agree though that without a good BH you need some kind of tricks and great tactics to avoid BH being abused. For example truls and ma lin using chop blocks.

Still of course it is a disadvantage and for example ma long and truls didn't reach their full potential until they improved their BH as diagonal BH to BH rally is kinda the bread and butter of modern table tennis from where you build up to win the point directly or by forcing a chance to run around and hit forehand.

 

[NextLevel]

What about he zhi wen and nicht xia liang? They were not winning medals anymore but still played at a top50 level a couple years ago at a very high age.

I'm not saying this style is not limiting but it seems that smart one sided pips penholders can get to a pretty good level (i still of course wouldn't recommend that style to a talented kid).

I agree though that without a good BH you need some kind of tricks and great tactics to avoid BH being abused. For example truls and ma lin using chop blocks.

Still of course it is a disadvantage and for example ma long and truls didn't reach their full potential until they improved their BH as diagonal BH to BH rally is kinda the bread and butter of modern table tennis from where you build up to win the point directly or by forcing a chance to run around and hit forehand.

They are lefties and use pips. Neither is accidental to their success.

 

[NextLevel]

Footwork/physical ability is the only way 1 sided penhold is viable today. It hasn't changed.

That's true for just about every style at the top level. Even the "backhand" players are superb athletes. Viability is not the issue for an Olympic Champion, thriving is The point is not just athleticism, the point is whether the one-sided penhold can withstand the rally demands of the modern game and the fact that pushing is not as prevalent because of the chiquita. The ball is just easier to block now so you are going to win far fewer points on serve or third ball than you did in 2004.

 

[jbvttcc]

Sorry for giving so many examples lol.
It got too long.

Not at all. Enjoyed your comment

 

[NextLevel]

I don't think it's about style. I think it's probably more mechanics. I remember Li Jao beat a prime Zhu Yuling in her 40s/50s. Fu Yu was still winning titles in Europe in her 40s. Kaii Konishi (Yoshida) won the Europe Cup with his team. Nobody would have said Noshad could play at the level he does. Ni has beat high level players. Loads of people would have dismissed Aruna with his backhand and said he can't possibly cover the table with the forehand. Many would have said Kim Kum-Yong's style is too outdated to beat China's top attackers. Moon Hyun-Jung came out of retirement to play pro in Korea - she was MVP in the league (only a couple years ago). But all these did it, all with the new ball. I think understanding the new ball and modern mechanics are crucially important, but past that, what's to say a faster Kaii Yoshida in his 20s couldn't compete today?
The truth is the probability of finding a player who can play it on *that* high level is so comparatively rare, that it would be too expensive for a national association to justify training a large amount of players in that style. China have a bit of a luxury here, as they have such a large pool they can experiment a lot more.
If Liu Ziyang progresses to the A team it would certainly shut some people up but not all. There'll always be naysayers unfortunately and coaches who can only imagine what they see.
It would be an interesting conversation to have with Yoo Nam-Kyu, Liu Guoliang and others what the conversations exactly were. But I think it's more cost, not feasibility.
Even playing pro J-Pen at 40 in Korea is a win imo!

Thanks for this.

Anyone can compete today with any style. Winning world titles and Olympic medals is a completely different story because players go into preparation cycles for such events and then you have to combine unfamiliarity with stability/consistency and to some degree get lucky. IMHO, it was not accident that Truls struggled with Darko and Quadri with Omar Assar. Because once you strip away unfamiliarity, you need stability.

My interpretation of a lot of these things is more biased (I considering the plastic ball era 2017 and beyond because that is when the stable ABS ball was produced), i think unfamiliarity explains the success of many of these players far more than their style. And I think the disadvantages of not having a stable backhand topspin sometimes get confused with the belief that not having a good backhand topspin means you dont have a backhand rallying shot (which Truls and Quadri largely always did, at least from 2016 forward). I don't think the threat of these styles makes up for their inconsistency against an opponent who knows how to topspin against them.

I do admit the examples are excellent and leave the discussion open to interpretation.