For those who think pips have a ceiling

[piligrim]

Yes but would a 60 yr old double inverted player ever win a feeder?

Timo would I think

 

[piligrim]

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.

Because ball was changed after Joo retired

 

[NDH]

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.

No one has said it’s absolute.

You’ll always get anomalies, but you are taking those anomalies and parading them as if they are the norm.

Statistics back up the fact that pips have a ceiling. You just don’t want to admit it 😂

And like I said before, it’s the same situation all the way down the ability ladder.

You’ve just given an example of the world number 1 losing to a worse player who uses pips.

The exact same can be said for one of the local leagues I play in, where an extremely good player (who doesn’t lose at all), lost to a worse player because of the pips.

That isn’t proving pips don’t have a ceiling, that’s proving very good players can sometimes struggle against pips.

But unlike the school yard, you don’t get to go around saying “I beat the champion which makes me the champion” 😂

 

[blahness]

Ok so according to you every pip player winning against double inverted players is an anomaly since theyre all limited by their "ceilings". Way to disrespect pip players lol. I rest my case.

 

[NDH]

Ok so according to you every pip player winning against double inverted players is an anomaly since theyre all limited by their "ceilings". Way to disrespect pip players lol. I rest my case.

Haha!

What’s the saying? Don’t argue with an idiot because they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience 😂

I’m checking out of this thread now because your point has been disproven by lots of respected and well known people.

I don’t have time for trolls who struggle to interpret comments and clearly don’t understand table tennis.

Classic arguments from lower level, armchair players 😊

 

[blahness]

Haha!

What’s the saying? Don’t argue with an idiot because they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience 😂

I’m checking out of this thread now because your point has been disproven by lots of respected and well known people.

I don’t have time for trolls who struggle to interpret comments and clearly don’t understand table tennis.

Classic arguments from lower level, armchair players 😊

I think you're not that high level yourself either given the amount of training you've got. Sorry that you're untalented and couldnt make it. You probably never even seen a LP attack or loop before given how you talk.

 

[ViperTableTennis]

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.

Points 1 and 3 are not consistent with each other, though! Point 1 posits no ceiling, but then point 3 works on the premise that there is a ceiling, but that it is so high that its doesn't matter to the vast majority of players. Your problem here is that either there is a ceiling or there isn't; you can't simultaneously promote both positions without being contradictory!

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.

NDH never said that pips were 'shit'. That is a complete misrepresentation of what he said. What NDH said was that "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".

 

[longrange]

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.

Are we simply going to ignore Falck-2019 here?

 

[longrange]

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.

Wasn't CNT playing pips for decades before being crushed by swedes on the verge of nineties? Chinese could've/would've figured out the best training, the best tactics against inverted and yet they switched to what's become modern looping game. I don't know much history but what did Liu Guoliang say about pips ceiling?

 

[ViperTableTennis]

Are we simply going to ignore Falck-2019 here?

Not at all...but Falck ultimately lost to a double-inverted player, and he is not consistently winning elite level tournaments or even getting into the final at elite level tournaments. Falck in 2019 is best considered as an anomaly that is statistically insignificant to the broader trend. How many other elite level players are there in the top 50 using pips? You can probably count them on one hand and still have a finger or two to spare! When you have a top 50 that is 95%ish populated by double-inverted players, that's pretty strong evidence to suggest that pips players struggle to assert themselves at the very top level...which is another way of saying that the ceiling for pips players is lower than it is for double-inverted players.

I've actually spoken with Falck before about his use of pips. He only switched to them as a teenager (at age 14) because he was struggling to loop properly with his FH and his coach suggested switching to essentially try and make the best of a bad situation.

 

[NDH]

Are we simply going to ignore Falck-2019 here?

What’s to ignore?

He had an absolutely amazing run to the final, where he lost to Ma Long (double inverted rubbers).

Just listen back to the commentary - It was such a shock for everyone that he got there, but full credit to him.

It’s virtually the definition of an anomaly, and when you look at the rest of his career results, they back this up.

I need to stress (because a certain someone just likes to re-word things and take things out of context).

Pips are not bad.

Pips can be very effective against a lot of players - Especially those who struggle to play them.

However, that doesn’t get past that fact that as soon as you get 2 equal players, where 1 can play comfortably against pips, the double inverted rubber player has more options, and a higher ceiling of what they can do.

The pips player has a more limited range of shots and tactics, which limits their “ceiling”.

 

[pongfugrasshopper]

Are we simply going to ignore Falck-2019 here?

Doesn't Falck 2019 prove NDH's point that best inverted beats best pips? I enjoy watching all styles (see avatar), and I have a ton of respect for Joo Sae Hyuk, but let's be real. His career does not at all compare to Ma Long's. And iirc, Ryu Seung Min used to beat Joo Sae Hyuk all the time.

 

[longrange]

Not at all...but Falck ultimately lost to a double-inverted player, and he is not consistently winning elite level tournaments or even getting into the final at elite level tournaments. Falck in 2019 is best considered as an anomaly that is statistically insignificant to the broader trend.

I've actually spoken with Falck before about his use of pips. He only switched to them as a teenager (at age 14) because he was struggling to loop properly with his FH and his coach suggested switching to essentially try and make the best of a bad situation.

Moving goalposts at its finest here. The whole discussion was about "pips" vs "inverted" AND "equal training"/"abilities". Losing to Ma Long, mind you the greatest of all time, in the final of WTTC is no argument at all. Destroying all his real peers on the way to the final is.

> How many other elite level players are there in the top 50 using pips? You can probably count them on one hand and still have a finger or two to spare! When you have a top 50 that is 95%ish populated by double-inverted players, that's pretty strong evidence to suggest that pips players struggle to assert themselves at the very top level...which is another way of saying that the ceiling for pips players is lower than it is for double-inverted players.

Oh, now it's about naming other pips users. Goalposts, goalposts. How many coaches teach and develop pips styles at the top level?

 

[longrange]

It’s virtually the definition of an anomaly, and when you look at the rest of his career results, they back this up.

Like that he's the world champion on top of that? I mean you want to prove the point, statistical anomaly and all that but you're stretching this a little too far.

 

[longrange]

Doesn't Falck 2019 prove NDH's point that best inverted beats best pips? I enjoy watching all styles (see avatar), and I have a ton of respect for Joo Sae Hyuk, but let's be real. His career does not at all compare to Ma Long's. And iirc, Ryu Seung Min used to beat Joo Sae Hyuk all the time.

It proves blahness' point actually. The greatest of all time has beaten an average Joe of tt in the final. Big deal. The average Joe of tt reaches the final with pips on FH — that's serious.

I gotta admit, I myself think pips have a limit which is lower than inverted and it has been shown in China vs Sweden in the last century. I'm not sure this couldn't be reconsidered now, though.

 

[pongfugrasshopper]

It proves blahness' point actually. The greatest of all time has beaten an average Joe of tt in the final. Big deal. The average Joe of tt reaches the final with pips on FH — that's serious.

I gotta admit, I myself think pips have a limit which is lower than inverted and it has been shown in China vs Sweden in the last century. I'm not sure this couldn't be reconsidered now, though.

So you admit Ma Long, a double INVERTED player, is the GREATEST OF ALL TIME. Would he be the GOAT if he played with pips with competition like ZJK and FZD among others?

 

[longrange]

So you admit Ma Long, a double INVERTED player, is the GREATEST OF ALL TIME. Would he be the GOAT if he played with pips with competition like ZJK and FZD among others?

Logic is the first victim of these threads, but bear with me: if you can find a pips player on Ma Long's level you can make the valid pips vs inverted comparison. You can't find such a player—you can't make such a comparison.

 

[NDH]

It proves blahness' point actually. The greatest of all time has beaten an average Joe of tt in the final. Big deal. The average Joe of tt reaches the final with pips on FH — that's serious.

It doesn’t prove his point though.

Sport is littered with shock tournament runs.

Whether that’s team sport or individual sport, there is always someone who over achieves and goes on an incredible run.

At that level (and let’s be fair, Falck was playing at the highest of high level during that tournament), the point is still proven that pips (IN GENERAL) fall short.

I emphasis the “in general” part, because you’ll always be able to find one off examples of where that isn’t the case.

If you want to argue about Falck not being on Ma Longs level….. what about his career stats against inverted rubber in general?

I think the whole “Falck” thing is a huge red herring to the overall discussion.

He had one amazing year where he played to an incredibly high standard.

But when it’s all said and done. He didn’t win in the end.

If you have someone with Ma Longs ability and they play with pips, I have no doubt they’d win tournaments and get very high in the world rankings.

But if playing someone with inverted rubbers on the same level…. They’d loose much much more than they’d win.

 

[NextLevel]

No one has said it’s absolute.

You’ll always get anomalies, but you are taking those anomalies and parading them as if they are the norm.

Statistics back up the fact that pips have a ceiling. You just don’t want to admit it 😂

And like I said before, it’s the same situation all the way down the ability ladder.

You’ve just given an example of the world number 1 losing to a worse player who uses pips.

The exact same can be said for one of the local leagues I play in, where an extremely good player (who doesn’t lose at all), lost to a worse player because of the pips.

That isn’t proving pips don’t have a ceiling, that’s proving very good players can sometimes struggle against pips.

But unlike the school yard, you don’t get to go around saying “I beat the champion which makes me the champion” 😂

Exactly. Hitting is a skill and it is not as physically demanding as looping in terms of power required to do it repeatedly but it is less consistent and more demanding in other ways. Hitting is best done with pips for a variety of reasons (less spin reaction, close to the table accuracy), but the idea that it has no ceiling vs looping is just trolling.

 

[NextLevel]

It doesn’t prove his point though.

Sport is littered with shock tournament runs.

Whether that’s team sport or individual sport, there is always someone who over achieves and goes on an incredible run.

At that level (and let’s be fair, Falck was playing at the highest of high level during that tournament), the point is still proven that pips (IN GENERAL) fall short.

I emphasis the “in general” part, because you’ll always be able to find one off examples of where that isn’t the case.

If you want to argue about Falck not being on Ma Longs level….. what about his career stats against inverted rubber in general?

I think the whole “Falck” thing is a huge red herring to the overall discussion.

He had one amazing year where he played to an incredibly high standard.

But when it’s all said and done. He didn’t win in the end.

If you have someone with Ma Longs ability and they play with pips, I have no doubt they’d win tournaments and get very high in the world rankings.

But if playing someone with inverted rubbers on the same level…. They’d loose much much more than they’d win.

With hitting, bad days often become really bad days. Just saying.