review and comparison; bluesponge hurricane 3 vs dignics 09c vs 37 degree hurricane 3

Konrad Bak said:

No. I asked about him because he thinks that he plays like chinese and his technique is like chinese player and he is mastermind about everythinng what is made by China
I dont want to make him as a victim or give him attention.

I didnt see any mistakes from the Japanese girls like she should change something

so I need conclusion

Click to expand...

You don't want to give him attention so you posted his video, right.

Where does he claim to play like Chinese and have technique like Chinese? I didn't watch any other of his videos. I'm not understanding how that is related to anything in this thread.

My meaning is straightforward. I believe the post would not have been written in that way if the reviewer had been male, regardless of their technique.

The dismissive tone, combined with the nonsensical focus on gender are solid indicators. A generalization like "weak", "typical woman forehand" can't even begin to make sense. I know I would be taking a huge step up if I had the forehand of any number of women I've played with.

It is interesting, I wish statements like Bob's original post were pursued with the level of zeal you showed mine!

deleted

It's a well known fact that generally women have a tendency to smash and counter with plenty of speed and power and because they play so fast we tend to neglect their spin, but if anyone here had the chance to practice/play with a pro woman knows what I mean

I just don't understand the notion some people follow that someone has to be at a certain playing level themselves to be able to ascertain/determine what level someone else is at. That is nonsense. Do I have to be close to Maradonas or Zidanes level to understand what made them great? Or any other sports genius for that matter, like MJ? Nope.

RidTheKid said:

I just don't understand the notion some people follow that someone has to be at a certain playing level themselves to be able to ascertain/determine what level someone else is at. That is nonsense. Do I have to be close to Maradonas or Zidanes level to understand what made them great? Or any other sports genius for that matter, like MJ? Nope.

Click to expand...

Except that's not the argument anyone is making.

Someone does need to have a certain playing level to be able to ascertain/determine the general characteristics and capabilities of certain equipment. Anything less, and you would likely attribute any deficiencies to the user and not the equipment itself.

But to your point about being able to understand the high level game...of course you do not need to be a Maradona or a Zidane, but 999/1000 times, someone who truly understands the game at a high level will have a decent capability themselves...not necessarily an elite expert, but a respectable capability.

There are users who clearly "leaned" towards expressing those views. Not outing anyone, but if you feel like it the posts are still there to read

Sure, but understanding of sports in general can be due to understanding laws of physics even if one is a terrible player themselves. Not saying that is the case here but we're not talking about alien tech or physio so many conclusions can be drawn at a tt novice standpoint just by getting the basics. This is science after all.

zyu81 said:

Except that's not the argument anyone is making.

Someone does need to have a certain playing level to be able to ascertain/determine the general characteristics and capabilities of certain equipment. Anything less, and you would likely attribute any deficiencies to the user and not the equipment itself.

But to your point about being able to understand the high level game...of course you do not need to be a Maradona or a Zidane, but 999/1000 times, someone who truly understands the game at a high level will have a decent capability themselves...not necessarily an elite expert, but a respectable capability.

Click to expand...

RidTheKid said:

There are users who clearly "leaned" towards expressing those views. Not outing anyone, but if you feel like it the posts are still there to read

Sure, but understanding of sports in general can be due to understanding laws of physics even if one is a terrible player themselves. Not saying that is the case here but we're not talking about alien tech or physio so many conclusions can be drawn at a tt novice standpoint just by getting the basics. This is science after all.

Click to expand...

Well, most of the discussion seems to me to be about judging someone's ability to assess a rubber. Not about someone's ability to judge someone else's level of play. But if we are talking about that, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a decent level is required to truly be able to judge someone's level. Beginners and amateurs often have a lot of concepts in their head of what is proper table tennis, and quite frankly are wrong a lot of the time. This may rub people the wrong way as elitist, but it doesn't make it less true unfortunately.

Any sport is, of course, governed by physics, but to say that one person can understand sports by understanding the law of physics is ridiculous. There is so much more to it.

It's fine to be an elitist, but it doesn't equal being right

I did write getting the basics though Other than that, sure it's much more to it than meets the eye. But breaking it down getting good at any sport is about repetition.

zyu81 said:

Well, most of the discussion seems to me to be about judging someone's ability to assess a rubber. Not about someone's ability to judge someone else's level of play. But if we are talking about that, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that a decent level is required to truly be able to judge someone's level. Beginners and amateurs often have a lot of concepts in their head of what is proper table tennis, and quite frankly are wrong a lot of the time. This may rub people the wrong way as elitist, but it doesn't make it less true unfortunately.

Any sport is, of course, governed by physics, but to say that one person can understand sports by understanding the law of physics is ridiculous. There is so much more to it.

Click to expand...

RidTheKid said:

It's fine to be an elitist, but it doesn't equal being right

I did write getting the basics though Other than that, sure it's much more to it than meets the eye. But breaking it down getting good at any sport is about repetition.

Click to expand...

I said it might sound elitist. But if you don't think it's right I suppose you are okay with getting your health advice from someone who has read Google and the internet somewhat extensively, rather than a doctor who has proven capabilities and experience working with actual people of all backgrounds?

"Having the basics down" is extremely subjective and I would argue that someone needs to have more than "the basics" to make an accurate judgment about equipment's overall capabilities. Do you agree?

You're preaching to the choir. I already mentioned it's science, not rocket science. The health advice example is not relevant here. Lousy footballers can become great coaches, what does that tell you?

zyu81 said:

I said it might sound elitist. But if you don't think it's right I suppose you are okay with getting your health advice from someone who has read Google and the internet somewhat extensively, rather than a doctor who has proven capabilities and experience working with actual people of all backgrounds?

"Having the basics down" is extremely subjective and I would argue that someone needs to have more than "the basics" to make an accurate judgment about equipment's overall capabilities. Do you agree?

Click to expand...

RidTheKid said:

You're preaching to the choir. I already mentioned it's science, not rocket science. The health advice example is not relevant here. Lousy footballers can become great coaches, what does that tell you?

Click to expand...

Coaching a team sport is not really comparable to table tennis, but either way, those examples you speak of are one in a million. And the people you call lousy were probably lousy compared to elite professionals, not lousy compared to the average recreational player.

All that anyone was saying on this thread (as I saw it) is that, in order to assess a rubber competently, you need to be able to have a certain playing capability in order to run it through the shots. It seems like you agree with that so I'm a little confused about what point you are trying to make now.

JediJesseS said:

My meaning is straightforward. I believe the post would not have been written in that way if the reviewer had been male, regardless of their technique.

The dismissive tone, combined with the nonsensical focus on gender are solid indicators. A generalization like "weak", "typical woman forehand" can't even begin to make sense. I know I would be taking a huge step up if I had the forehand of any number of women I've played with.

It is interesting, I wish statements like Bob's original post were pursued with the level of zeal you showed mine!

Click to expand...

Jedi, that post is more like it dude. Now you explained and detailed your thoughts.

I disagree and agree with you on the majority of elite woman's FH (without looking at OP vids, I would say she is elite or near elite amateur, very good amateur minimum).

Big majority of elite amateur and above ladies offensive TT play is compared to offensive oriented males is closer to the table countering style with big emphasis on pace and placement as opposed to overwhelming spin or speed/spin with placement. There are big differences physically, and while many elite women can really strke the ball, their impact is mostly not well suited for H3 on top end, not to say none of them would prefer it, only a few can really use it well at top end offensively.

Having said that, I so totally agree with yu in that without even going deep into any of her vids, a player this class has a match-ready FH above my level (and you stated above your level, with the sme satisfaction if you had her FH)... I would CERTAINLY be upgraded if I had even HALF the difference of my level and her level of a "weak" FH... because I feel that even that "weak" FH is much more consistent, well placed, much higher quality and ready to keep attacking WAY over my current abiliities on FH given teh same ball she is striking (except maybe on slow opener heavy spin)... that is why I would be happy to have her kind of rally FH performance at even 1/2 the level of difference between her and I, which should be a significant gap.

And having said that, I for sure beoieve that lady knows enough to know if H3 is for her or not, and also knows enough to make a coherent and fluid breakdown and comparison/analysis more so than majorit or nerly all the TTD forum members.

zhu, just a guess from what I have seen from RTK over time and what martin refers to him...

I would suspect that if both you and RTK met over dinner and few dozen Dopplebock Biers each, there would be a LOT of empty Bier bottles and a lot of agreement going on after some real lively conversations.

Just a suspicion, but I would like to see my suspicions empirically tested with an actual meetup between you two.

If you don't like the coaching example, then what about commentators? Should an NHL commentator possess a slapshot over 80 mph or hit all 4 targets in the all star tests to be OK:d to work as an NHL commentator? Should a football commentator be able to dribble past Bonucci and score or tackle Messi mid dribble and win ball possession? I'm just kidding around of course but you understand where I'm getting at. We're pretty much in agreement

zyu81 said:

Coaching a team sport is not really comparable to table tennis, but either way, those examples you speak of are one in a million. And the people you call lousy were probably lousy compared to elite professionals, not lousy compared to the average recreational player.

All that anyone was saying on this thread (as I saw it) is that, in order to assess a rubber competently, you need to be able to have a certain playing capability in order to run it through the shots. It seems like you agree with that so I'm a little confused about what point you are trying to make now.

Click to expand...

RidTheKid said:

If you don't like the coaching example, then what about commentators? Should an NHL commentator possess a slapshot over 80 mph or hit all 4 targets in the all star tests to be OK:d to work as an NHL commentator? Should a football commentator be able to dribble past Bonucci and score or tackle Messi mid dribble and win ball possession? I'm just kidding around of course but you understand where I'm getting at. We're pretty much in agreement

Click to expand...

I think you raise a fair point - all I'm saying is some base level of understanding usually implies some base level of capability. No need to be elite.

But yes, seems we are in agreement, cheers

Cheers... I would so much like to see the Bier casualties between you two...

Well, I don't like both NL's and Bob's comments.
But Zyu81 and RidTheKid's ones both make sense

UH-oh... quang better at starting stuff than even Der_Echte... I better take cover in one of Carl's West Coast Hide-out houses before the high flying rounds hit ground...