I prefer to watch ML & FZD for the 1000th time than any other TT players

[latej]

Evolution will likely to make us grow higher with better tonicity for sure

So, I am not sure at all that height has much to do with athletic achievement or "tonicity" or strength or muscle tone

Yes. When I see these players, like WCQ, FZD, how low/wide they go, and they are not very high in EU standards, then I think we need to get even lower. I remember interview with TB where he so casually says something like: "just get a little lower". It makes such a difference...

Because of these, and on the opposite side, the reach and longer arm => faster ball implication (like HC), came my questions about height. I can accept height is secondary easily (we have many examples, M.Ito, P.Franciska), just wanted to discuss.

[UpSideDownCarl]

Yes. When I see these players, like WCQ, FZD, how low/wide they go, and they are not very high in EU standards, then I think we need to get even lower. I remember interview with TB where he so casually says something like: "just get a little lower". It makes such a difference...

Because of these, and on the opposite side, the reach and longer arm => faster ball implication (like HC), came my questions about height. I can accept height is secondary easily (we have many examples, M.Ito, P.Franciska), just wanted to discuss.

I think the greats adjust to whatever height they are, use the advantages, overcome the disadvantages, and still become great.

Xu Xin is not short. Wang Liqin was not short. FZD is kind of not so tall. Ma Long is of a fairly normal height. Not tall. Not short. ZJK was of a similar height to ML. Persson was fairly tall.

Tall with longer arms might give you greater reach enable you to cover more ground from further back.

Shorter might give you more lateral mobility (not exactly sure but it might: see my comment about Michael Jordan's skills with lateral movement, or just watch how agile he was weaving through people). Being shorter certainly enables you to get lower with less effort which definitely is helpful for tracking and contacting the ball and for using mechanical advantage in your strokes by having your shoulder and arm closer to the height of the ball at the point of contact (more leverage).

But there are enough examples of players of all different heights playing in a variety of ways that I am not sure what we can say with any kind of certainty.

[Lula]

Feel like there are benefits of being both shorter and taller. Can image players adapt pretty naturally after these. Would be interesting if coaches think about physical attributes like length when coaching players how to play. Probably not so much? I know that you do not want to to tall when using short pimple on the forehand but obviously it can work that too.

[Music&Ping]

I think the greats adjust to whatever height they are, use the advantages, overcome the disadvantages, and still become great.

Xu Xin is not short. Wang Liqin was not short. FZD is kind of not so tall. Ma Long is of a fairly normal height. Not tall. Not short. ZJK was of a similar height to ML. Persson was fairly tall.

Tall with longer arms might give you greater reach enable you to cover more ground from further back.

Shorter might give you more lateral mobility (not exactly sure but it might: see my comment about Michael Jordan's skills with lateral movement, or just watch how agile he was weaving through people). Being shorter certainly enables you to get lower with less effort which definitely is helpful for tracking and contacting the ball and for using mechanical advantage in your strokes by having your shoulder and arm closer to the height of the ball at the point of contact (more leverage).

But there are enough examples of players of all different heights playing in a variety of ways that I am not sure what we can say with any kind of certainty.

There are all kind of exceptions indeed, but if we look at the PG standards in Basket Ball the last 2 decades, it's not that tall: Tony Parker, Steve Nash, Steph Curry, Jason Kidd, Chris Paul to name a few.

Being shorter means less effort to get lower indeed, that's why the 9 in Rugby XV is fairly small: that specific scrum half job requires to see what's happening under the scrums, rucks, and to get the ball there to pass it, so most of the time you have to take the ball on the ground and pass it quick.

That's why seeing guys like Falck or Pitchford is quite an exception to me. XU Xin is agile with an awesome footwork ability, he has better footwork than Ma Long I think, but the one's who's quicker at that job to me is definitely FZD.

[UpSideDownCarl]

There are all kind of exceptions indeed, but if we look at the PG standards in Basket Ball the last 2 decades, it's not that tall: Tony Parker, Steve Nash, Steph Curry, Jason Kidd, Chris Paul to name a few.

Being shorter means less effort to get lower indeed, that's why the 9 in Rugby XV is fairly small: that specific scrum half job requires to see what's happening under the scrums, rucks, and to get the ball there to pass it, so most of the time you have to take the ball on the ground and pass it quick.

That's why seeing guys like Falck or Pitchford is quite an exception to me. XU Xin is agile with an awesome footwork ability, he has better footwork than Ma Long I think, but the one's who's quicker at that job to me is definitely FZD.

Muggsy Bogues, not very tall. Spud Webb actually, a fairly normal height (only slightly shorter than Ma Long). If what you were saying was really true, these guys would not be the exception and considered amazing athletes who were able to compete against the odds.

But Tony Parker: 6'2", Steve Nash: 6'3", Steph Curry 6'3", Jason Kidd: 6'4", Chris Paul 6'1", I would consider all of them on the taller side of regular athletes.

But, does this mean that Lebron James (6'9") is not really a factor in the NBA today? Is he less mobile? Kevin Durant (6'10"), Anthony Davis (6'10"), Kevin Garnett (6'11").....

To mention players from the era where I paid most attention: Karl Malone (6'9"), Scotty Pipen (6'8"), Kobe Bryant (6'6"), James Worthy (6'9"), Hakeem Olajuwon (7'0").

So, I just don't really think what you are saying holds much water. I can also provide an alternate theory that is just as speculative and perhaps based on at least as many actual facts that perhaps the reason there are not so many tall players today in table tennis is that, an athletic child who leans towards being taller might be recruited to so many other sports that clearly are more lucrative for professional players. For most of the world, almost any sport is more lucrative than TT. (However, in China TT is quite lucrative).

However, in the 1990s it seems there were quite a few tall TT players at the top levels: I can't think of too many aside from Persson, but Jorg Rosskopf, Zoran Primorac and Petr Korbel seem to stand out to me.

But, again, my example of Quadri Aruna is worth noting how good he was especially considering how little training he received and the quality of the training in comparison to most top players.

So, I just think you are putting forward a theory that, to me, does not seem to stand up to scrutiny.

[bzing]

Chop-Block to the right with Waldner @ 1:55 vs Timo Boll

You're welcome

Ma Long's sideblock has a lot more bending wrist movement and it's not as half-ar*ed and lazy. If you watch Ma Long especially for the last 2-3 years, almost in every match he did at least 2-3 sideblocks, whereas Waldner you can hardly ever see him do the sideblock only apart from this video and most of the time he only does his lazy blocking, maybe it's why he got so fat later in his career.

[Lula]

Pretty good to compete at such a high level with only lazy blocking! Wonder how good he was when he really tried.

[yoass]

Pretty good to compete at such a high level with only lazy blocking! Wonder how good he was when he really tried.

Rumor had it that he gave all of 'm a run, and then pretty much held his own for quite a while.

Back in the day there wasn't nearly as much footage. I've seen the pros train, early 80s, and some tournaments and competition games as well. That sucks, when we're trying to look through a mirror in to the past to find evidence in comparison to today's highlights.

[bzing]

With velocity of the ball - I'm not so sure. I think the ball is not flying faster than what profis playing in Germany and elsewhere produce.

Velocity is not just the pure speed, it's the whole momentum of the ball travel including the kinetic energy of the object. And the rallies with the Chinese matches are not necessarily shorter than in European professional matches.

Just take a look at this match I found it very boring compared to any recent matches in the China Super League or the National Championships.

There was only one or two good rallies like at 6:52 and that's about it. The entire rest of the match is incredible linear which is a very typical thing with these tensor springy rubbers (and the player's technique that is based on these rubbers) that feel so superficial and insipid compared to the H3 rubbers (and the Chinese player's technique based on them) where you can hear the sound of the ball impacting the rubber.

It feels almost like an entirely different world of table tennis altogether.

[latej]

Velocity is not just the pure speed, it's the whole momentum of the ball travel including the kinetic energy of the object. And the rallies with the Chinese matches are not necessarily shorter than in European professional matches.

My objection was solely against the higher "velocity" of the ball. Without further re-definition of the term I just took the standard meaning. I understand how you meant it now.

It feels almost like an entirely different world of table tennis altogether.

It's different. But both are amazing. I may have slighter personal preference, but it doesn't matter, if you just realize how good they all are.

[UpSideDownCarl]

I like watching matches in person. When CoVID was not the universe we were confined in, seeing people play at lots of different levels was, and will be again, a great experience.

One thing I have learned from seeing matches in person and then seeing matches on video is how, video is really not kind to what you see in matches. It is almost like it amplifies flaws. I have seen matches in person and then watched the video of the same match and thought, it looked so much more amazing in person.

Now the top Chinese players are amazing. But, seeing players who are Elite amateurs, or lower level pros (between top 200-700 in the world) in matches live is still better than watching anything on video. At least, in my opinion.

If someone wants to restrict his/her watching of TT to only the best of the best of the best, that is fine. But it would really be problematic for the sport if everyone felt that way. And, if this is about loving TT and wanting the sport to grow, everyone having the perspective of only wanting to watch CNT players....well....the financial side of TT is bad enough as it is.

But it is true, CNT players are PROFESSIONAL. They get trained professionally. They get paid by the government, (even the ones you never get to see play, they are salaried). So, it is like Soviet athletes in the Era when Soviet amateur athletes dominated amateur sports because they were scouted, housed, trained and paid by the state.

Most of the top TT players from other countries get there by starting young and training hard, privately, independently. So, in some sense, it is impressive that they can even remotely come close to competing with the CNT athletes. It is sad. But.....reality is not always how we would like it to be.

I remember one time, going to a futbol (soccer in America) match. It was three matches actually. An all day event. I can't really remember who the first matches were. I think one of the teams may have been Trinada/Tobago. Well, the first two matches seemed fine. The teams were okay. The competitiveness was fine. But the final match of the day was Mexico vs Costa Rica. And when those two teams came on, it was clear that we had been watching lower level play in the previous matches. It was very evident. Sort of like watching elite amateur TT players and then seeing top pros. The talent differential was clearly noticeable, even for someone who had never been to a match before like me.

The Chinese government really does everything that can be done to cultivate top athletes in TT. It would be nice if other countries did that. But I don't think there are any other governments that care quite that much. So, it is fair to say that comparing the top CNT players to players from other countries is, in some sense like comparing THE TOP Players to mid-level pros.

But, if you really love TT, you should be able to find some gems in any competitive match.

[pingpongpaddy]

But, if you really love TT, you should be able to find some gems in any competitive match.

I really agree with the above. Also I would suggest that you dont have to look only at ML or WLQ for examples to learn.
My idea is not that ML or WLQ have 'perfect' forehands or footwork but rather that the special advantage that is expressed in their techniques is that it is ML or WLQ that is executing. If those techniques were grafted onto a 2300 player but without the benefit of the experience and personality and knowledge that CNT players have then probably the result would not be that impressive. On the other hand if a 2300 player had coaching in china regarding specifically the mental side of playing matches studying of opponents etc then the improvement
would be significant

[latej]

I really agree with the above. Also I would suggest that you dont have to look only at ML or WLQ for examples to learn.
My idea is not that ML or WLQ have 'perfect' forehands or footwork but rather that the special advantage that is expressed in their techniques is that it is ML or WLQ that is executing. If those techniques were grafted onto a 2300 player but without the benefit of the experience and personality and knowledge that CNT players have then probably the result would not be that impressive. On the other hand if a 2300 player had coaching in china regarding specifically the mental side of playing matches studying of opponents etc then the improvement
would be significant

For me it is like 2 perspectives. One is the "aesthetic/technique" perspective, the other one is the "result/whole" perspective.

The word "perfect" has very concrete visual physical meaning for me. It means the body has been both fully and naturally used. I really don't care who and what level. Unfortunately it needs a lot of practice, so it tends to coincide with high level players :-) I've recently linked to one TTNuri's video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS-uwOXXZOc . At 3:29 is a good example. I consider it aesthetically pleasing. Also, it doesn't have to be people, it can be animals too...

The "result" perspective is much less clear for me. I'm aware of its existence. I know that if someone goes to China, and receives training/schooling, his level will improve. I just don't know how and why it happens. I think this is also what Der_Echte is trying to hammer to our heads from different angles, but you know, tough nut...