The flex in a golf Club or badminton racket is quite evident yes. They have a real slingshot effect.
But tabletennis-equipments small differences tends to be quite signifcant. And wood is flexible to Some degree. How much of an effect, depends on the thickness and length. Of course the very short distance from the handle to the head will make it a lot less flexing than a Golf Club or badminton racket. But we're not talking about the same amount here. If we did, then thinner all wooden blades would be the fastest, but they're clearly not, because the rebound given from the thin blade itself is not enough. But it can be a significant difference between low impact and loops, but not smashes. The movement of a smash in tt is not the same as badminton, where the movement is shorter and more direct, allowing the slingshot to have a positive effect on the short.
Some people clearly witness the flexing in a blade and its effect on loops. Yes the ball hangs longer, so there'll be less room for error with a thinner blade. But not all blades with the same thickness and similar construction will have a clear trampoline effect.
Flexy blades I've tried that had a clear trampoline effect:
Stiga Allround Evolution - 91g
Tsp swat - 83g
Avalox bt555 - at least 90g
Avalox bt550 - 80-85g
Flexy Blades I've tried that didn't have a clear effect:
Avalox bt555 - 85g
Stiga Allround Classic - 43g
Yasaka Sweden classic - lightweight
Donic Waldner Allplay - lightweight
Sendt fra min SM-A202F med Tapatalk
You are still not understanding my point. Blades with flex are quite frequently good for looping. That part is not in dispute.
What I am saying is the flex does something different than most people realize. The rebound of the flex is too slow to have an effect on the shot because the blade does not rebound until the ball has left. Dwell time is simply not long enough for the ball to still be on the blade face by the time the rebound of the flex has happened.
So, I am saying that the results described as happening with a blade that has more flex when looping are likely the result of the the initial flex letting you hold the ball on the rubber longer. Rather than it being a result of the wood rebounding. If that is the case, what rebounds and causes the extra effect, could be that the ball has been given more time in contact with the rubber so that the rebound of the topsheet has more effect on the ball. That rebound might happen faster than the rebound of the wood.
But having seen slow motion footage of wood flexing, I don't think the wood rebounding can happen anywhere near fast enough for the rebound to propel the ball. And I doubt the wood can flex side to side anywhere near enough because of the construction of the wood which is very different than the tube of a golf handle or a badminton racket (long thin shaft vs flat piece of wood).
I honestly doubt that there can be notable side to side flex in a TT blade handle because the wood is designed to not flex in that specific direction. Thinner blades flex forward and back much more easily. the way the wood is lined up, the wood is much more resistant to side to side force.
And for flex-rebound to help a TT loop it would have to be side to side flex. Forward to back flex would push the ball down if it affected the ball--this is because the racket is closed over the top of the ball, so facing down or mostly down.
So, this isn't an issue of whether blades with flex are better for looping. That is not what I am talking about.
I am just questioning what it is that causes a blade with flex to be better for looping. And I am suggesting that what causes that is NOT the rebound from the flex of the wood. Instead, it is something else. Probably the extra room for error that the more flexible blade allows and perhaps the extra time on the rubber allowing the rubber to have more of a mechanical spin effect on the ball.
And another thing that can be said simply, these issues are not there for someone with really high level technique. Higher level players can loop with blades that are fairly stiff without loss of performance because their contact is enough better that they don't need the extra room for error to apply maximum force into spinning the ball.