For those who think pips have a ceiling

[longrange]

Different rubbers make for interesting matches
but
Its not about...
the bat..
or
the rubber.
its about the player !

and long may that continue.

just reflect on
HZW (sp vet)
beating
world champ schlager
and
olympic champ ryu seung min
in the same league match

It is very much about equipment. The blade and the rubbers impose the playing style, there's no way around it. There is no point in looping with pips or smashing/driving with inverted.

Anecdotal, but I once tried an inch-thick balsa blade with short pips and I could straightforwardly drive and smash most loaded underspins: you just hit and the ball lands. Certainly not something you can do with a mainstream setup.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

Its not shifting the goalposts. Pips players simply haven't figured out a lot of optimal solutions unlike double inverted where there has been a lot of research and development. In fact a lot of pips players with suboptimal technique (for eg Luka) or not so good physicality and movement (for eg Ni Xia Lian) are still doing very well.

But regardless of that, the idea of a pips ceiling is kinda dumb in the face of all these facts.

But you are shifting the goalposts if you start off with a hypothesis about the innate qualities of equipment itself ("pips don't have a ceiling"), but then replace that with a new hypothesis along the lines of "players just haven't figured out how to use pips properly yet". These are two different hypotheses; the former focusing on equipment, and the latter focusing on the player.

Pips have their own niche, and they are certainly better at doing some things than other rubber types...but ultimately it boils down to this; topspin is the superior type of spin in table tennis and is the strategy with the highest probability of success...and the best rubbers for generating topspin are inverted rubbers.

 

[igorponger]

SHORT PIPS IS THE KEY.

Playing the ball right off the bounce from position close to the table was the most common style in China land ever since 1950s. Till recently, Chinese only used short pimples rubber, no LP were used. METEOR brand was then a typical product for most China competitions.
Short pimples with mid size sponge have the superior advantage of generating highest speed and pace. The quick pace of rally and varying placement of the ball all over the table would benefit Chinese penholders a lot. It is the China short pimples that used to drive Europians all totally mad.

 

[blahness]

But you are shifting the goalposts if you start off with a hypothesis about the innate qualities of equipment itself ("pips don't have a ceiling"), but then replace that with a new hypothesis along the lines of "players just haven't figured out how to use pips properly yet". These are two different hypotheses; the former focusing on equipment, and the latter focusing on the player.

Pips have their own niche, and they are certainly better at doing some things than other rubber types...but ultimately it boils down to this; topspin is the superior type of spin in table tennis and is the strategy with the highest probability of success...and the best rubbers for generating topspin are inverted rubbers.

No these 2 are complementary. Pips itself doesn't have a ceiling. However, due to suboptimal technique, physicality and strategies pips players often do not even come close to optimising their level unlike inverted players. This is why they haven't really cracked top 5 in the world...

Furthermore, those who talk about a pips ceiling are also really far away from this ceiling themselves so they're just talking shit.

Your view about topspin is way too simplistic - firstly pips players can also use inverted, and even inverted - inverted matches involve a lot of non topspin balls.

 

[blahness]

Short pips, yes? Doesn't it behave like inverted rubber to certain extent?

No it completely doesn't lol....

 

[Kopp]

No it completely doesn't lol....

Oh.. What a shame 😳 sorry, I didn't know that. I'm a beginner & still learning. I've played against short pips, I could return their ball like normally, as if I played against inverted pips. The only different I felt was the ball didn't spin as much as inverted rubbers did. I received balls like floating or near empty or less spinny. But for long pips, I received opposite spin to what I gave and I hate play against long pips. In fact I always refused to plays against them if I can, it's not fun.

 

[blahness]

That argument is very flawed.

The "ceiling" argument holds weight as you move down through the levels of ability.

I beat almost all pips players I play against - But last weekend I got absolutely stuffed by a better player (UK number 75 or something) and he uses pips.

Does that suddenly mean pips are the answer?

There is no denying that pips can give certain players advantages they would not have otherwise.

Players who struggle with mobility, or general attacking technique for example.

But the "ceiling" argument is that if your opponents can overcome your pips, there is just nothing else you can do - You have no weapons and your ceiling is lower.

You see this all the way through the ability spectrum.

A very low level player will win a lot of matches with pips, but then get stuffed at the next level up.

But a pips player at the next level up who has a lot of experience there, will have the same success.... and then stuffed in the next level.

And so on.

Until you get to the very top, where you don't really have many pips players, because the very (very) good player stuff them.

I came back to see the post and it's funny because although it's long and seems to make sense, it's just circular logic.

Better ranked players are obviously better because they're... better? So pips players also get destroyed by inverted players above their level, and inverted players get destroyed by pips players above their level.

Replace pips with inverted and you still get the same logic. In other news, water is wet...

 

[NDH]

I came back to see the post and it's funny because although it's long and seems to make sense, it's just circular logic.

Better ranked players are obviously better because they're... better? So pips players also get destroyed by inverted players above their level, and inverted players get destroyed by pips players above their level.

Replace pips with inverted and you still get the same logic. In other news, water is wet...

Until you get to the top…. Where pips hit their ceiling and there’s no way through.

I wonder how many players (globally) improve year on year, vs stay the same (rough) standard?

If I look at all the local leagues in the UK that I know, the *vast majority* of players have played at the same standard for a very long time.

You are seemingly working on the basis that people are constantly improving and developing, which makes me think you’ve not really been around table tennis that much?

Your entire post is attempting to “debunk” the myth that pips have a ceiling, and unfortunately, all you’ve done is get lots of people to show exactly why it’s not a myth, and how your thought process is wrong 😅

But you are right with one thing. Water is indeed, wet.

 

[blahness]

Until you get to the top…. Where pips hit their ceiling and there’s no way through.

I wonder how many players (globally) improve year on year, vs stay the same (rough) standard?

If I look at all the local leagues in the UK that I know, the *vast majority* of players have played at the same standard for a very long time.

You are seemingly working on the basis that people are constantly improving and developing, which makes me think you’ve not really been around table tennis that much?

Your entire post is attempting to “debunk” the myth that pips have a ceiling, and unfortunately, all you’ve done is get lots of people to show exactly why it’s not a myth, and how your thought process is wrong 😅

But you are right with one thing. Water is indeed, wet.

At the top it's simply because inverted players have highly optimised games which is why theyre dominating. Just look at for eg how much the techniques have improved over time on the inverted side vs pips. Yes at that level players are indeed constantly improving and developing.

For amateurs it doesn't even matter because they're so far off from any ceiling anyway.

 

[Gozo Aruna]

Note to self:

Pips is a nightmare for amateur players. Period.
However, once an amateur player who uses two sided inverted who stick with TT long enough and has the patient and dogged persistency to learn the game, will start to develop counter-measure.
What counter-measures?
1. More consistent looping with high rotation top-spin.
2. Able to move close to the table and execute over the table flick.
3. Able to move close to the table and execute over the table FH top-spin loop-kill.

When such amateur start to employ new arsenals, the pips player will suddenly be at a lost of how to deal with these new techniques. The odd evens out, the play began to become not so one sided anymore. It takes time & patience to build such skill for the inverted users.

Note to self again:
1. Many amateur pips player I encounter, tend to over-rely on the pips side to do most of the work for them.
2. They wanted a quick fix to win games, and pips gave them these super-power immediately.
3. They never develop proper footwork nor body mechanics to hit the ball properly. They will stand square in the middle of the table and move at most half a step to the right and left.
4. That is until they start to meet a both side inverted player who can now return the ball back to them consistently with high rotation ball.
5. They start to realize, now they need to move their body and not rely on their wrist solely. But because for such a long time, they don't have to nor need to do any of these to win, they forgot such skill.
6. Meanwhile the both side inverted, had to learn the hard way, that is, footwork and proper mechanic to hit a proper topspin loop.

 

[NextLevel]

Note to self:

Pips is a nightmare for amateur players. Period.
However, once an amateur player who uses two sided inverted who stick with TT long enough and has the patient and dogged persistency to learn the game, will start to develop counter-measure.
What counter-measures?
1. More consistent looping with high rotation top-spin.
2. Able to move close to the table and execute over the table flick.
3. Able to move close to the table and execute over the table FH top-spin loop-kill.

When such amateur start to employ new arsenals, the pips player will suddenly be at a lost of how to deal with these new techniques. The odd evens out, the play began to become not so one sided anymore. It takes time & patience to build such skill for the inverted users.

Note to self again:
1. Many amateur pips player I encounter, tend to over-rely on the pips side to do most of the work for them.
2. They wanted a quick fix to win games, and pips gave them these super-power immediately.
3. They never develop proper footwork nor body mechanics to hit the ball properly. They will stand square in the middle of the table and move at most half a step to the right and left.
4. That is until they start to meet a both side inverted player who can now return the ball back to them consistently with high rotation ball.
5. They start to realize, now they need to move their body and not rely on their wrist solely. But because for such a long time, they don't have to nor need to do any of these to win, they forgot such skill.
6. Meanwhile the both side inverted, had to learn the hard way, that is, footwork and proper mechanic to hit a proper topspin loop.

Sometimes looping to pips is not as effective as flat hitting or smashing when you have the stroke or the opportunity is present.

Finally, and most importantly, don't underestimate what serves can do to pips players especially if you have a good backspin vs no spin combination. The most important thing is to be able to adjust to the return and ideally attack it over time, missing attacks as you try to adjust is fine because once you lock in, the opponent is in trouble unless they can return deceptively and read your deception and that is hard

 

[Kopp]

Sometimes looping to pips is not as effective as flat hitting or smashing when you have the stroke or the opportunity is present.

💯

 

[ViperTableTennis]

No these 2 are complementary. Pips itself doesn't have a ceiling. However, due to suboptimal technique, physicality and strategies pips players often do not even come close to optimising their level unlike inverted players. This is why they haven't really cracked top 5 in the world...

Furthermore, those who talk about a pips ceiling are also really far away from this ceiling themselves so they're just talking shit.

Your view about topspin is way too simplistic - firstly pips players can also use inverted, and even inverted - inverted matches involve a lot of non topspin balls.

The fact that you can say "these 2 are complementary" proves my point that they are two distinct hypotheses. So like I said, you started off with one hypothesis about the innate qualities of equipment itself ("pips don't have a ceiling"), but then introduced a new hypothesis that focuses instead on the players. When you shift the focus of your argument like that, we can call it 'moving the goalposts'.

Unfortunately your position is simply wrong. All equipment has a ceiling to what it can do...so the real argument here isn't about whether or not pips have a ceiling; the argument is rather where is that ceiling located relative to other equipment? I'm no physicist, but I do understand the basics, and one of the most important physics concepts in Table Tennis is the Magnus effect. Topspin oriented play simply makes better use of this physical phenomenon, and that's why it can be confirmed as the superior* form of spin in Table Tennis.

* by superior I simply mean the strategy that has a greater probability of success.

 

[blahness]

The fact that you can say "these 2 are complementary" proves my point that they are two distinct hypotheses. So like I said, you started off with one hypothesis about the innate qualities of equipment itself ("pips don't have a ceiling"), but then introduced a new hypothesis that focuses instead on the players. When you shift the focus of your argument like that, we can call it 'moving the goalposts'.

Unfortunately your position is simply wrong. All equipment has a ceiling to what it can do...so the real argument here isn't about whether or not pips have a ceiling; the argument is rather where is that ceiling located relative to other equipment? I'm no physicist, but I do understand the basics, and one of the most important physics concepts in Table Tennis is the Magnus effect. Topspin oriented play simply makes better use of this physical phenomenon, and that's why it can be confirmed as the superior* form of spin in Table Tennis.

* by superior I simply mean the strategy that has a greater probability of success.

No, the 2nd point was brought up as a supporting point to defend the 1st main hypothesis ie there is no ceiling with pips.

You don't get to define the term shifting the goalposts - it simply means shifting the criteria which I haven't.

"Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt."

 

[NDH]

At the top it's simply because inverted players have highly optimised games which is why theyre dominating.

An excellent example of disproving your point 😂

If you give the very best training to someone with inverted, and someone with pips (assuming the 2 players are equally as skilled), the inverted player will always win.

And that’s what you are seeing at the top level.

Why? Because there is a ceiling as to what you can do with pips, and a player who understands how to play pips with inverted rubbers will win the majority of the time.

I’m not really sure what you are trying to do with this thread?

Pips are an amazing option for a lot of people. There are SO many people who struggle against them at the amateur level, and pips players will often pick up wins against “better” players simply because of the equipment.

But as soon as you come across someone who can comfortably play against pips….. your options are limited. You can’t counter attack aggressively, or counter loop.

Your “ceiling” is lower.

 

[Lowday20298]

It's a one time thing. They play, people learn them, they never see top 64 again. It's how it goes. A good topspin will always win. It's been proved again and again by the top 10, that hasn't seen a player with pips since joo, and he was an anomaly.

 

[NextLevel]

If you remember that this is thr same guy who accused me of attacking him for pointing out it is illegal to play with two rackets and claimed it was happening all over China and presented as evidence a girl training in a video, you will know exactly what his goal is.

An excellent example of disproving your point 😂

If you give the very best training to someone with inverted, and someone with pips (assuming the 2 players are equally as skilled), the inverted player will always win.

And that’s what you are seeing at the top level.

Why? Because there is a ceiling as to what you can do with pips, and a player who understands how to play pips with inverted rubbers will win the majority of the time.

I’m not really sure what you are trying to do with this thread?

Pips are an amazing option for a lot of people. There are SO many people who struggle against them at the amateur level, and pips players will often pick up wins against “better” players simply because of the equipment.

But as soon as you come across someone who can comfortably play against pips….. your options are limited. You can’t counter attack aggressively, or counter loop.

Your “ceiling” is lower.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

No, the 2nd point was brought up as a supporting point to defend the 1st main hypothesis ie there is no ceiling with pips.

You don't get to define the term shifting the goalposts - it simply means shifting the criteria which I haven't.

"Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt."

But the 2nd hypothesis doesn't defend the 1st hypothesis! The notion that most people haven't optimised the use of pips (hypothesis 2) doesn't defend the notion that pips don't have a ceiling (hypothesis 1); all it indicates is that those people haven't reached that ceiling and therefore aren't negatively impacted by it. You even made this point yourself earlier in the debate when you stated that "From the perspective of amateur players and even a lot of pros, there is no ceiling. There may be a ceiling of say world top5 but that's already out of the woods like top 99.999% of TT players that it doesnt even matter anyway..."

You are literally saying that there is a ceiling to pips, but that it is irrelevant for the vast majority of players as they don't get close to it...but then you contradict that statement by also wanting to maintain the idea that there is no ceiling with pips. Do you not see that there is a contradiction between arguing that there is no ceiling to pips whilst also acknowledging that the ceiling to pips doesn't apply to most players?

 

[blahness]

But the 2nd hypothesis doesn't defend the 1st hypothesis! The notion that most people haven't optimised the use of pips (hypothesis 2) doesn't defend the notion that pips don't have a ceiling (hypothesis 1); all it indicates is that those people haven't reached that ceiling and therefore aren't negatively impacted by it. You even made this point yourself earlier in the debate when you stated that "From the perspective of amateur players and even a lot of pros, there is no ceiling. There may be a ceiling of say world top5 but that's already out of the woods like top 99.999% of TT players that it doesnt even matter anyway..."

You are literally saying that there is a ceiling to pips, but that it is irrelevant for the vast majority of players as they don't get close to it...but then you contradict that statement by also wanting to maintain the idea that there is no ceiling with pips. Do you not see that there is a contradiction between arguing that there is no ceiling to pips whilst also acknowledging that the ceiling to pips doesn't apply to most players?

Just to be clear, the 3 points I made are:

1) there's no ceiling to pips
2) the reason behind the lack of top 5 pips players is due to simple lack of numbers + suboptimal techniques/physicality/strategies by current pips players
3) even if there is an imagined ceiling, they are so high that it doesnt apply to 99% of players anyway. You are not at the level where you cannot at least upgrade some aspect of your play.

So those who try to soothe themselves to think that pips people are taking a shortcut but which later has a ceiling are simply incorrect. Most of the time the only reason for their "ceiling" is because they're just not working as hard or smarter than the inverted players who have upgraded their playstyles tremendously throughout the years.

 

[blahness]

An excellent example of disproving your point 😂

If you give the very best training to someone with inverted, and someone with pips (assuming the 2 players are equally as skilled), the inverted player will always win.

And that’s what you are seeing at the top level.

Why? Because there is a ceiling as to what you can do with pips, and a player who understands how to play pips with inverted rubbers will win the majority of the time.

I’m not really sure what you are trying to do with this thread?

Pips are an amazing option for a lot of people. There are SO many people who struggle against them at the amateur level, and pips players will often pick up wins against “better” players simply because of the equipment.

But as soon as you come across someone who can comfortably play against pips….. your options are limited. You can’t counter attack aggressively, or counter loop.

Your “ceiling” is lower.

Lol, so if pips are so shit as per what you say, how did Sun Yingsha world no.1 and reigning World Champion who has the best training environment lose recently to a player who for sure has way worse training environment than her? And how did Ni Xia Lian win a feeder tournament at an age of 60 against the barrage of extremely skilled world class double inverted players?

I know some pros who have lost to amateur pip players and won't bother to include them.