Throw angle is not a rubber property!

[latej]

On the same strokes and on the same blade they have different throw angles, sometimes widely different.
Definitely, absolutely and certainly.
Verified by more than just me.
Choose what you want but they are not the same.
Try the Dignics and Tenergy series rubbers with differing pimple structures and tell everyone that the throw angle is the same..... 🙄

Well, I think we are being a bit unfair to @Tyce, who ofc kind of asked for it, by presenting something in a bit more controversial way ;-)

But anyway, to come back to your point. You say "On the same strokes and on the same blade"... And ofc they have different throw angles, but that's not the point... His point is more that in different strokes (let's say ranging from slow/low impact to fast/strong impact), the throw angle can vary so much, that it can e.g. happen, that rubber A has higher throw-angle than rubber B in low impact, but it has lower throw-angle than rubber B in strong impact...

So I'd argue it really also depends on the stroke (and as Lazer also on the blade, the whole setup matters)... And tbh I don't see this as controversial at all!

 

[piligrim]

Exactly. The funny thing is that all the Tenergy rubbers are *relatively* high throw, but the idea that it is easier to get a higher arc or more spin with one rubber vs. another is real and can be experienced by someone using the rubber no matter their level. It also affects blocking, pushing and other things. And depending on how you play, some of these windows becomes important. When Mizutani didn't like 05 or Korbel didn't like 05, does anyone think it is about the player not being able to change their stroke?

T25 I think low throw

 

[NextLevel]

T25 I think low throw

T25 is not usually part of the conversation but if it is, it isn't low throw, it is just built for a different style.

 

[NetProphet]

Well, I think we are being a bit unfair to @Tyce, who ofc kind of asked for it, by presenting something in a bit more controversial way ;-)

But anyway, to come back to your point. You say "On the same strokes and on the same blade"... And ofc they have different throw angles, but that's not the point... His point is more that in different strokes (let's say ranging from slow/low impact to fast/strong impact), the throw angle can vary so much, that it can e.g. happen, that rubber A has higher throw-angle than rubber B in low impact, but it has lower throw-angle than rubber B in strong impact...

So I'd argue it really also depends on the stroke (and as Lazer also on the blade, the whole setup matters)... And tbh I don't see this as controversial at all!

You are wanting to be generous and that's fine.
But the thread title is categorically incorrect. That's not even debatable.
As for his point, the post is so long but the point I took was that throw angle doesn't matter because we'll just adapt.
That's fine as a perspective but to many people it does still matter and I personally know many many player who choose their rubbers with this as one of the considerations.
Yes, they've played and adapted to many rubbers over the years but they've then chosen their favorite and throw angle was factored in.
Someone can write an essay to tell everyone that it is all rubbish.
But again they'd be categorically incorrect.

Start a conversation (to ask folk how much throw angle matters to them and what tradeoffs they've made in adapting to different equipment and why) and you likely get softer input with a nice exchange of ideas. Cool.

Make categorical statements that don't hold up and you'll be shot down...

 

[latej]

Start a conversation (to ask folk how much throw angle matters to them and what tradeoffs they've made in adapting to different equipment and why) and you likely get softer input with a nice exchange of ideas. Cool.

Make categorical statements that don't hold up and you'll be shot down...

;-) if it were my way, a rubber can be certified and sold IF AND ONLY IF all of it's real properties are openly disclosed, especially pimple radius, height and spacing, top-sheet thickness, and maybe some others, like top-sheet coating details. These are the real properties. And we are being kept in darkness... ;-) as usual, without much protest ;-)... A company discloses empty statements and comparisons (even wrong), and we're happy about it... How bout having some controversy finally ;-)

 

[NextLevel]

Well, I think we are being a bit unfair to @Tyce, who ofc kind of asked for it, by presenting something in a bit more controversial way ;-)

But anyway, to come back to your point. You say "On the same strokes and on the same blade"... And ofc they have different throw angles, but that's not the point... His point is more that in different strokes (let's say ranging from slow/low impact to fast/strong impact), the throw angle can vary so much, that it can e.g. happen, that rubber A has higher throw-angle than rubber B in low impact, but it has lower throw-angle than rubber B in strong impact...

So I'd argue it really also depends on the stroke (and as Lazer also on the blade, the whole setup matters)... And tbh I don't see this as controversial at all!

It's pretty wrong for a variety of reasons even in intent. I can't find the articles anymore but Butterfly used have in its All about Tenergy articles how pip configurations affected blocking and pushing. It's far from as simple as purely adjusting your stroke, especially when you have developed preferences for how you want the ball to travel and how you win points.

What it is really trying to say is that you won't get as much out of changing your equipment as improving your technique - this is broadly true. But when a player's game depends on fast topspins or lots of blocking, you will feel the game differently depending on 05 vs 64 or 80. In a game of developed instincts and styles, these things matter.

 

[b3N]

It is 🫤

 

[NetProphet]

;-) if it were my way, a rubber can be certified and sold IF AND ONLY IF all of it's real properties are openly disclosed, especially pimple radius, height and spacing, top-sheet thickness, and maybe some others, like top-sheet coating details. These are the real properties. And we are being kept in darkness... ;-) as usual, without much protest ;-)... A company discloses empty statements and comparisons (even wrong), and we're happy about it... How bout having some controversy finally ;-)

Well I don't really agree with most of that but it doesn't matter 😂
I don't see us as victims of an ESN or Butterfly conspiracy. There are great products for us to use as try out as we wish and most of us have a fair idea of what we're buying before we buy it.
I pretty much knew exactly what I was getting when I bought Rakza X, Z,7 as well as T19 and D80 and 09c. What you're asking is for competing manufacturers to align and standardise things in a way that would remove much of their competitive advantage.
I don't see that anywhere else in the world, Mercedes don't divulge data as on engine components and Nike doesn't even mention its products or why they might be better than Adidas or Reebok etc. It's all about providing something people can identify with through sponsorship of elite athletes or competition.
Homogeneous and transparent was the Trabbi where you went on a 20 yr wait list for the worst car in the world! 😂

Truth is we're absolutely spoiled for choice. I can't see the reason to complain about that.

 

[latej]

It's pretty wrong for a variety of reasons even in intent. I can't find the articles anymore but Butterfly used have in its All about Tenergy articles how pip configurations affected blocking and pushing. It's far from as simple as purely adjusting your stroke, especially when you have developed preferences for how you want the ball to travel and how you win points.

Sorry I somehow didn't get what is "wrong for variety of reasons even in intent."

What it is really trying to say is that you won't get as much out of changing your equipment as improving your technique - this is broadly true. But when a player's game depends on fast topspins or lots of blocking, you will feel the game differently depending on 05 vs 64 or 80. In a game of developed instincts and styles, these things matter.

Well, yes, that's what I said in my example about the player, for whom the T05H is better than MX-P/D. You'll generally not be able to change people, very few are willing to change... (It's better to change the rubber, YES ;-))

 

[ThePongCommenter]

Sorry I somehow didn't get what is "wrong for variety of reasons even in intent."



Well, yes, that's what I said in my example about the player, for whom the T05H is better than MX-P/D. You'll generally not be able to change people, very few are willing to change... (It's better to change the rubber, YES ;-))

Throw angle is, without any doubt, a property of table tennis rubber. Hopefully that clears it up.

And how it doesn't matter as presented in the OP is also wrong because even though players can adapt to characteristics of equipment to make it work decently well, those adaptations aren't necessarily things that certain players want to do or should do to optimize their playstyle.

 

[latej]

Well I don't really agree with most of that but it doesn't matter 😂
I don't see us as victims of an ESN or Butterfly conspiracy. There are great products for us to use as try out as we wish and most of us have a fair idea of what we're buying before we buy it.
I pretty much knew exactly what I was getting when I bought Rakza X, Z,7 as well as T19 and D80 and 09c. What you're asking is for competing manufacturers to align and standardise things in a way that would remove much of their competitive advantage.
I don't see that anywhere else in the world, Mercedes don't divulge data as on engine components and Nike doesn't even mention its products or why they might be better than Adidas or Reebok etc. It's all about providing something people can identify with through sponsorship of elite athletes or competition.
Homogeneous and transparent was the Trabbi where you went on a 20 yr wait list for the worst car in the world! 😂

Truth is we're absolutely spoiled for choice. I can't see the reason to complain about that.

I see it more like the description of what a given food contains, like 30% sugar, 20% fat, 20% corn, 50% alcohol, etc. It should be disclosed, same as it is for food... There is a qualitative difference between a thing like a pimple-structure and internal mechanism of an engine... Not the same thing...

But you'll of course think it is a competition between manufacturers, when in fact it is a competition between manufacturers and users... Hf.., what a conspiracy now ;-)

 

[latej]

Throw angle is, without any doubt, a property of table tennis rubber. Hopefully that clears it up.

NOPE, it isn't.

Imagine another term, called bottoming out. I'm sure you know it. So softer rubber will tend to bottom out on harder stroke, and its throw-angle will be lower...You see, it changes with the impact force... That's all... What's so hard for you to see it???

 

[joshmak10]

Throw Angle is most definitely a rubber property and while I agree the vast majority of missed loops are a result of user error, the arc of a rubber definitely plays a part. For example I can loop well on my FH with H3 and its relatively flat arc but find myself overshooting the table with a 09c due to its high arc. Vice versa on BH, I love 09c's arc on BH but find H3 on BH painfully unusable.

Equipment is not the reason you miss loops, but equipment sure as hell optimizes your game. A rubber or blade that doesnt help optimize your game, even if you can land balls on the table if you are a good player, will make you feel uncomfortable and unable to play your proper game, and that is just a fact.

 

[ThePongCommenter]

NOPE, it isn't.

Imagine another term, called bottoming out. I'm sure you know it. So softer rubber will tend to bottom out on harder stroke, and its throw-angle will be lower...You see, it changes with the impact force... That's all... What's so hard for you to see it???

The point you think you are making here doesn't in any way prove the conclusion you think it does. Try again.

 

[merlin el mago]

T25 is not usually part of the conversation but if it is, it isn't low throw, it is just built for a different style.

What style?

 

[latej]

The point you think you are making here doesn't in any way prove the conclusion you think it does. Try again.

Well, at best, we could say the throw-angle is the function which depends on the rubber, blade and the stroke... You could of course try to say "it is a property", but it is not precise enough. Property is more like an attribute, like say color, or say pimple radius... The throw-angle, at best, we could say "derived property", as Tyce said, but it is better to simple see the parts it depends on... And it does not depend only on the rubber...

That's what I tried to illustrate specifically for you with the "bottoming out" example, which proves, beyond any doubt, that the throw-angle depends also on the impact force... See now, or not yet???

EDIT: As I mentioned earlier: "it can e.g. happen, that rubber A has higher throw-angle than rubber B in low impact, but it has lower throw-angle than rubber B in strong impact..." That's why I dislike calling it property... It's too imprecise...

I mean, we can argue about definitions of terms etc... The goal is to reach deep enough understanding... Perhaps you already understand it the same way, but still for some reason want to call it "property"... Well, who knows ;-)

 

[NextLevel]

Sorry I somehow didn't get what is "wrong for variety of reasons even in intent."



Well, yes, that's what I said in my example about the player, for whom the T05H is better than MX-P/D. You'll generally not be able to change people, very few are willing to change... (It's better to change the rubber, YES ;-))

The original post is pretty wrong.

 

[latej]

The original post is pretty wrong.

TBH I only managed to read the 1st half ;-) But I like the point about derived properties... And we have a good discussion, don't we? ;-) So, mission accomplished...

 

[NextLevel]

What style?

Close to the table topspins off the bounce with power and spin. They had close to the table penholders in mind when releasing that rubber.

 

[ThePongCommenter]

Well, at best, we could say the throw-angle is the function which depends on the rubber, blade and the stroke... You could of course try to say "it is a property", but it is not precise enough. Property is more like an attribute, like say color, or say pimple radius... The throw-angle, at best, we could say "derived property", as Tyce said, but it is better to simple see the parts it depends on... And it does not depend only on the rubber...

That's what I tried to illustrate specifically for you with the "bottoming out" example, which proves, beyond any doubt, that the throw-angle depends also on the impact force... See now, or not yet???

EDIT: As I mentioned earlier: "it can e.g. happen, that rubber A has higher throw-angle than rubber B in low impact, but it has lower throw-angle than rubber B in strong impact..." That's why I dislike calling it property... It's too imprecise...

I mean, we can argue about definitions of terms etc... The goal is to reach deep enough understanding... Perhaps you already understand it the same way, but still for some reason want to call it "property"... Well, who knows ;-)

I thought this point was so obvious that it didn't need to be said...doesn't make OP any less misleading