#control (science / ability / perception / reality/ circumstanses) )

zeio · Jun 25, 2021

cytivrat said:
...So it was like when I used T05, I could hit 90-95% of those where I want it to. When I used PME it was like 50%. I understand that probably there was some difference in either power or angle between my strokes that caused this. But Tenergy could handle those changes and land ball on a table and the same difference was crucial for PME...

Also I had the similar story with Barracuda. Everyone says that it has great control, but when performing not very strong backhand opening loop, ball slipped from it and was hitting a net way too often. I understand that it is a problem with my stroke, that wasn't consistent enough, but I have never had anything near like that with any other rubber before and after it.

That's how "control" is defined at Butterfly, that is, the reliability of hitting the shot in the direction as intended by the player. That definition is consistently applied in the granted patent for Dignics. Kaoru Nishida, credited in the patent for Bryce Highspeed, serves as a consultant for Butterfly and has a PhD in Physics or Engineering(gotta look it up). He was involved in the development of Tenergy and has written a few columns for Japanese magazine Table Tennis Kingdom, one of which happens to be about control. Last but not least, "control" is discussed in detail in the "All ABOUT TENERGY" infomercial.

That issue with Baracuda is typical of ESN Tensor. There are few if any "gears" in the low to medium range. That's been an age-old problem since the high-density sponge.

langel · Jun 25, 2021

brokenball said:
I am not object to what yogi says about the player being the most important part. I have stated the it is the player that has the control.
1. The player moves the paddle. Without the player the paddle just sits there.
2. No one has refuted my statement above about switching paddles. The control does not move with the paddle. It stays with the player.

Yes, I have a math/statistical/physics hammer and I know how to quantify things. So? Lord Kelvin thought it was a good idea. Otherwise you guys are just spreading myths and opinions.

The problem I have with the posts above is that they forgot to mention blue moons or when the planets align. They are not helping and distracting from the main question about whether it is the player or the equipment that has control. I want EVERYONE that mentions control again to also specify the temperature, humidity, phase of the moon etc. I would expect the TT manufacturers to do the same. All these different things make any concept of consistency meaningless and if you still believe the equipment has control then it make the concept of control meaningless.

Seriously, I said within a game or match. I know conditions change. People are adaptable. Refute what I have said in points 1 and 2 above.

"Conntrol ON ...", man, means the ability of the Player to be effective enough in very particular circumstances, and yes, thanks for mentioning the moon.
It is important. It IS a factor. GMD is a factor too, because many of the TTD Forum members happen to be older man, 60+, 70+, just at the threshold of the CVD, etc. And now we can add the very contemporary factors like 70+ covid vaccinated, not vaccinated, either CVD ambulated or not, before or after, and so on.

IB66 · Jun 25, 2021

When reviewing equipment, as we know, it’s a persons opinion, and is relative to that person’s abilities and experience / judgement ETC

How to measure ‘CONSISTENCY’?? and apply this to a review?? Again this is difficult to do!!

The reviewer may have improved their technique, achieved better consistency to their strokes. And therefore achieved better CONTROL So their review of a product from 2 yrs ago may make that product appear to be worse than a product reviewed 1 day ago!!

To actually measure CONSISTENCY and CONTROL of a player using different equipment, then it would be necessary to record and analyse the data, statistics, and there are still variables, like ‘ last night was great!! Loads of Beer consumed. Feeling a bit rough today though!!🤮

Once the data has been collected and an analysis carried out, then one could be in a position to say what effect the differing equipment has had on THEIR consistency and control of the ball.

UpSideDownCarl · Jun 25, 2021

Der_Echte, I think the goon squad is, right now, at this very minute, trying to chase down everyone on this thread.

Is it time for jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge yet?

Look at that control.

brokenball · Jun 26, 2021

This is fruitless. None of you will answer my 2 questions.

[quote[
That's how "control" is defined at Butterfly, that is, the reliability of hitting the shot in the direction as intended by the player. That definition is consistently applied in the granted patent for Dignics.
[/quote]
That doesn't answer the question if control rests with the player or the equipment.

That issue with Baracuda is typical of ESN Tensor. There are few if any "gears" in the low to medium range. That's been an age-old problem since the high-density sponge.

What does gears have to do with whether control rests with the player or the equipment? Gears is another bogus term but save that for another topic.

When reviewing equipment, as we know, it’s a persons opinion, and is relative to that person’s abilities and experience / judgement ETC

Finally, we are getting closer.

How to measure ‘CONSISTENCY’?? and apply this to a review?? Again this is difficult to do!!

Yes, but it can be done. It is done in industry all the time. I have done it. Look up "6 sigma".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma

Once the data has been collected and an analysis carried out, then one could be in a position to say what effect the differing equipment has had on THEIR consistency and control of the ball.

Yes! At least one person has been "saved"

Is it time for jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge yet?

That water look good. I am stuck in the north west "heat bubble" now and tomorrow I need to drive 300 miles home.

Der_Echte · Jun 26, 2021

UpSideDownCarl said:
Der_Echte, I think the goon squad is, right now, at this very minute, trying to chase down everyone on this thread.

Is it time for jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge yet?

Look at that control.

Carl, you need to track down that bridge pic where one of the jumpers was quoting you.

Sent from my SM-T590 using Tapatalk

zeio · Jun 26, 2021

Catch-22. Yet again, hard-headed engineer is arguing with himself. Well, he's been at it for over 10 years. Presenting the following for future giggling:

http://mytabletennis.net/forum/foru...iable-are-paddlepalaces-rubber-ratings#436315

If there are graphs of C.O.R. vs impact speeds it will not take long for us to figure out what graphs are best and this can be related to 'gears'. A graph where the C.O.R is 0.5 for all impact speeds would show that the rubber is very linear and if the impact speed is 20 m/s then you know it will bounce back at 10 m/s...

Perhaps the best curve will be linear or have curve to it, I don't know, but once we see the C.O.R. vs impact speed curves we can get a better feel for how the rubber will react. I may like a non-linear curve where the C.O.R. varies at different speeds and you may like the C.O.R. to be linear or flat and be the same at all impact speeds.

http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=44438&PID=551720&title=what-are-gears#551720

The terminolog 'gears' is stupid. What is really meant is linearity. For instance is how bouncy is the rubber? The speed after impact at slow speeds may be much different than the speed after impact at high speed. This would be a very non-linear rubber. Ideally the coefficient of restitution would be constant over the range of all impact speeds. This would mean the rubber has many 'gears' or the speed after impact is linear.

http://mytabletennis.net/forum/foru...665386&title=most-linear-off-off-blade#665386

Define linear. Do you mean COR as a function of impact speed or deflection as a function of impact speed or deflection as a function of force or is this another touchy feely question?

IB66 · Jun 26, 2021

brokenball said:
This is fruitless. None of you will answer my 2 questions.

[quote[
That's how "control" is defined at Butterfly, that is, the reliability of hitting the shot in the direction as intended by the player. That definition is consistently applied in the granted patent for Dignics.

That doesn't answer the question if control rests with the player or the equipment.

What does gears have to do with whether control rests with the player or the equipment? Gears is another bogus term but save that for another topic.

Finally, we are getting closer.

Yes, but it can be done. It is done in industry all the time. I have done it. Look up "6 sigma".
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma

Yes! At least one person has been "saved"

That water look good. I am stuck in the north west "heat bubble" now and tomorrow I need to drive 300 miles home.

Hi BB,

just scanned the Six Sigma link, interesting!! especially the relevance to construction processes. Which is the industry I work within.
There was also a section about how some projects ‘failed’ and limitations etc, but my gut feeling regarding ‘failed’ projects is that the personnel involved may have lost CONTROL !!!! Haha

The use of statistics is a very good tool to have.
Golf coaches and players use stats and analyse the figures so they can highlight aspects of a players ‘game’ where improvements can be made. The golf commentators also have this sort of info available to them, I think the ‘Tours’ the pro’s play in keep these stats and may have been behind the initial use and development of using these stats
One of the most relevant or ‘telling’ is the ‘shots gained’ stat, usually over a 4 round tournament, but can also be used historically or for a single round, and possibly for a single hole!!
This stat is based against the performance of the ‘field’ of players.
So ‘total shots gained’ is for one round, all strokes. if the average total shots for a round is 72, and a player has a ‘total shots gained’ of 3, it means they shot a round of 69. There are now ‘shots gained’ stats for putting, chipping, pitching, from the tee etc, what parameters are set for each category I’m not sure about!!

For table tennis, could a stat such as ‘points gained serving’ ( for this example, I’m using the term for a point won caused solely by the opponent loosing the point with the receive of serve) be of value??
Well it would tell you that if you have ‘gained’ or won 3 points on average more than the rest of the field serving, you are serving pretty well.

Of course the difference between Golf and Table Tennis is that for Golf you are competing against a golf course!! NOT a player!! So the stat for TT could be misleading because the quality of the opposition varies, unless you play against all the players. Therefore it follows that the stat may best be used for the ‘group’ phase or for a single match only in the knockout phase, sort of points gained serving by player ‘A’ vs Player ‘B’

UpSideDownCarl · Jun 27, 2021

IB66 said:
That water look good. I am stuck in the north west "heat bubble" now and tomorrow I need to drive 300 miles home.

Hi BB,

IB66, on the text that is from BrokenBall in your post but that is not in a quote, if you post this:

[ quote ] without the spaces between the bracket and the first and last letters of the word, and [ /quote ] after the quote (again, spaces removed inside the square brackets), then the text from BrokenBall will be in a quote rather than looking as if it is in your post.

UpSideDownCarl · Jun 28, 2021

BrokenBall;

Yes! At least one person has been "saved"

Click to expand...

IB66;

Hi BB,

just scanned the Six Sigma link, interesting!!

Lets see if this works.

Well, I see there are some flaws in the new site's ability to read code.

It looks like I got there in the end. But, the site messes with code in a way that makes no sense. Oh well.

brokenball · Jun 28, 2021

UpSideDownCarl said:
Lets see if this works.

Well, I see there are some flaws in the new site's ability to read code.

It looks like I got there in the end. But, the site messes with code in a way that makes no sense. Oh well.

There is an icon in the upper right that I hit that converts the quote to text.
I usually delete the page markers, the {p}{/p}. I used braces instead of brackets to avoid adding a page.

I use
{quote=name}
{/quote}
Again, use brackets instead of braces

The forum does not have a preview ability. That would be handy for testing a posts formatting before it is really posted.

I don't think I have convinced enough people. I may need to get geeky if that will do any good.

What has really p!$$ed me off is all the distractors that bring up a bunch of phony excuses or obstacles. Yet they will not challenge the opinion about control from anyone doing a review or a TT manufacturer with the question, "did you evaluate the rubber during solar eclipse" or similar. Yet they ask the same questions here.

STOP IT! I can and have modeled systems with 25 variables by recording what happened and then finding a set of equations that will respond the same way with the same inputs. Just because you can't do doesn't mean it can't be done.

I acknowledge that the properties of equipment will change slightly do to the change in temperature and equipment. However I doubt the consistency of the equipment does. People are adaptable but inconsistent. The warm up period is for learning how the equipment works for that match. The equipment will not change much during the course of a match. It is the players that are inconsistent. The players that are more consistent have better control.

.

lodro · Jun 28, 2021

brokenball said:
There is an icon in the upper right that I hit that converts the quote to text.
I usually delete the page markers, the {p}{/p}. I used braces instead of brackets to avoid adding a page.

I use
{quote=name}
{/quote}
Again, use brackets instead of braces

The forum does not have a preview ability. That would be handy for testing a posts formatting before it is really posted.

I don't think I have convinced enough people. I may need to get geeky if that will do any good.

What has really p!$$ed me off is all the distractors that bring up a bunch of phony excuses or obstacles. Yet they will not challenge the opinion about control from anyone doing a review or a TT manufacturer with the question, "did you evaluate the rubber during solar eclipse" or similar. Yet they ask the same questions here.

STOP IT! I can and have modeled systems with 25 variables by recording what happened and then finding a set of equations that will respond the same way with the same inputs. Just because you can't do doesn't mean it can't be done.

I acknowledge that the properties of equipment will change slightly do to the change in temperature and equipment. However I doubt the consistency of the equipment does. People are adaptable but inconsistent. The warm up period is for learning how the equipment works for that match. The equipment will not change much during the course of a match. It is the players that are inconsistent. The players that are more consistent have better control.

.

trying to understand better.
If one would have a robot that could shoot balls 100% accurate against a fixed blade then record the resulting trajectories of the blocked balls, theoretically the balls should bounce 100% accurately onto the same spot. Right ?????
If the same exercise is then repeated but with the blade held by a human, any slightest deviation from the landing spot could then be rated as "lack of control" ???? Right ????? 🤔

Baal · Jun 29, 2021

I didn't check into into this thread before now, but finally I decided to look at it, and it has gone about how I would have expected. There is always the one dude that seems to think people are robots and the whole thing can be reduced to engineering (and who actually plays accordingly as you can see when he posts an occasional video of his "looping").

About the only thing I care to add to this whole this is that something that increases a player's margin of error in affecting one aspect of his/her shots will probably have negative impacts on other aspects of that player's shots. Also, what are we really talking about? A rubber or blade increases/decreases control of WHAT, exactly? It's not going to increase "control" of everything? Or is it?

An old fashioned marketing trick is to claim that a blade/rubber will increase the speed, the spin AND (magically) the control. Admitting that I have no idea how to define control, my gut feeling after decades of doing this is as follows: SPEED, SPIN, CONTROL, pick two.

And as much as we want to make it scientific (and I do science for a living), I still suspect that the best way to report this would be to get about ten very good players, give them the equipment for a week (without labels), have them report their impression on a 1-10 scale, and report the mean results for speed, spin, and control.

brokenball · Jun 29, 2021

lodro said:
trying to understand better.
If one would have a robot that could shoot balls 100% accurate against a fixed blade then record the resulting trajectories of the blocked balls, theoretically the balls should bounce 100% accurately onto the same spot. Right ?????
If the same exercise is then repeated but with the blade held by a human, any slightest deviation from the landing spot could then be rated as "lack of control" ???? Right ????? 🤔

Good question.
I know the robot cannot throw balls consistently so any inconsistency shooting balls at a fixed padde can not be attributed to the paddle alone. However, a comparison could be made with by shooting balls at two paddles and comparing the in consistencies. This assumes the robot doesn't change during the test. So one paddle can be compared to another paddle in this way. One paddle with spinnier or faster rubber may shoot have the ball bounce off faster or at a wider angle than a slower rubber. The key would be to measure the variation. Now in this case the robot would be like an inconsistent player.

The faster or spinnier rubber would probably have a more variation in where the ball lands than the slower rubber. I hope this is obvious. The slower rubber wouldn't magnify the differences in the robot balls as much as the faster rubber. I have a feeling that this is what people call control but it is really just how consistent the rubber is.

I would use the term lack of control as much as lack of consistency. Statisticians use terms like standard deviation and variance as a measure of consistency. The smaller the number the better or more consistent. Smaller standard deviation would result in having a smaller "grouping".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_grouping

passifid · Jun 29, 2021

Standard deviation is useless in this scenario as we are talking about the amount of inaccuracies in a stroke regarding contact point, angles force etc that allows you to play a similar shot. We are not looking for the most consistent equipments but the one with the most forgiveness of each playstyle:

serve + receiving, flicks, loops and blocking (active and passive)
Serve + receiving, loops, drives, punches and blocks
serve + receiving, smashes, chops, blocks and punches
Etc.

See how t05 would likely be as consistent as anything when fed perfect balls at an angle. And also for me would likely be the best backhand flick and looping rubber if those shots are taken in isolation.

But when someone hits the ball at me, or serves such that I can't hope to try and flick or I have to passive block it's not so reliable for me as say MX-K overall.

The experiment would likely be better done with real players broken into skill levels and styles producing a graph of an arbitrary unit.
What your doing now is like how people try to define a knockout punch. It doesn't work some people who transfer a heck of a force cannot ko reliably because of factors like timing, shot selection and telegraphing and other fighters who don't hit very hard when measuring force are ko artists because of the ability to pick the right shot

brokenball · Jun 29, 2021

passifid said:
Standard deviation is useless in this scenario as we are talking about the amount of inaccuracies in a stroke regarding contact point, angles force etc that allows you to play a similar shot. We are not looking for the most consistent equipments but the one with the most forgiveness of each playstyle:

How do you quantify forgiveness?
Forgiveness is a myth that is spread on TT forums.

See how t05 would likely be as consistent as anything when fed perfect balls at an angle.

I agree so it must be the player that is inconsistent.

The experiment would likely be better done with real players broken into skill levels and styles producing a graph of an arbitrary unit.

Actually, this was done by pathfinderpro on Youtube many years ago. Pathfinderpro got two groups of players to evaluate faster and slower rubbers but it still was opinion.

What your doing now is like how people try to define a knockout punch. It doesn't work some people who transfer a heck of a force cannot ko reliably because of factors like timing, shot selection and telegraphing and other fighters who don't hit very hard when measuring force are ko artists because of the ability to pick the right shot

No and your analogy is not good. One can apply a lot of force with a push too. It is momentum and energy directed to a limited area that is effective.

brokenball · Jun 29, 2021

Baal said:
I didn't check into into this thread before now, but finally I decided to look at it, and it has gone about how I would have expected. There is always the one dude that seems to think people are robots and the whole thing can be reduced to engineering (and who actually plays accordingly as you can see when he posts an occasional video of his "looping").

This is false. I have been talking about inconsistencies of players the whole time. I am very familiar with robots and they are much more consistent that people.

About the only thing I care to add to this whole this is that something that increases a player's margin of error in affecting one aspect of his/her shots will probably have negative impacts on other aspects of that player's shots.

The margin of error is decided by the players shot selection. You can aim close to the edge where the margin of error is small or simply try to get the ball back in the middle of the table where the margin of error is large.

Also, what are we really talking about? A rubber or blade increases/decreases control of WHAT, exactly? It's not going to increase "control" of everything? Or is it?

My point is that the player has control, not the equipment. It is the player that responsible for most of the inconsistencies. Tje equipment has no control.

An old fashioned marketing trick is to claim that a blade/rubber will increase the speed, the spin AND (magically) the control.

Yes, but in reality the faster the equipment the more it magnifies the inconsistencies of the player.

Admitting that I have no idea how to define control,

I do. A simple lesson. First, there are two types of control. There is open loop where there is no feedback and closed loop where there is feedback. TT is open loop because there is nothing you can do to correct the stroke or impact once it is made. Closed loop systems are correcting errors every millisecond or faster in motion control. What is interesting is that the Omron robot has closed loop control of the paddle, so do people, but the robot does not have closed loop control of the impact. The impact or contact time is too short. The Omron robot and humans use experience learn to correct for the next shot.

In industry there are many applications like this where the event happens so fast that the mechanics cannot react fast enough so the computer must adjust for the next event.

And as much as we want to make it scientific (and I do science for a living), I still suspect that the best way to report this would be to get about ten very good players, give them the equipment for a week (without labels), have them report their impression on a 1-10 scale, and report the mean results for speed, spin, and control.

NO, NO, NO! People have opinions, some are good but they are not facts. After reading many posts on this and other TT forums you should know there are a lot of disagreements between players.

Does it make sense to you that if one paddle was twice as fast ( double the COR ) as another paddle then any error in the player's stroke would be twice as much error from the desired trajectory for the faster paddle than the slower paddle?

jammmail · Jun 29, 2021

Why is 'control' such a controversial word in the table tennis vocabulary as apposed too 'touch, feel, gears, linear' and other terms used?

Control isn't about the the player doing the shot in the exactly the same swing, getting the same result – as we aren't robots. Personally I understand it to be, that with inconsistency and variation, still being able to get a good (hoped for/planned) result. i.e being late to the ball, or out of position, too close/too far away from the table and still making a good quality shot, as every shot we play against a another player there is a variation in the ball we face more speed/spin/arc/positioning. Some rubbers and blades that is easier to do that than others.

Dima mentions in his interview with Dan about 09c that the thing he likes about it is that he has the 'feeling' he can change his decision late on a stroke or be out of position and still make a good shot. Surely thats what we all want to stay in the rally to give us a higher chance of winning a point?

We are humans – you cannot separate emotion from the match/game situation. We play this sport for fun – no? Im not sure making it based in scientific or engineering formula helps people have fun!

UpSideDownCarl · Jun 29, 2021

Here is how I see the issue of the content of this thread.
-
Many people have opinions. Some people have more informed opinions than others.
-
However, even when someone has a solid background to make a well informed opinion on the subject, if that person is more focused on arguing with why other people are WRONG than just getting the whole nitty gritty of his opinion on the subject down, then all we will have is a lot of opinions and arguing.
-
So, I say to you, BrokenBall: Ignore this thread. Take your time to get your thesis down in writing. Make it as technical as you like. Feel free to have a separate post where you try to dumb down the stuff you think is overly technical.
-
Then post that in a thread that you start yourself. If you can do that and refrain from arguing with the people who will invariably not understand your post and comment despite that fact, the content will still be beneficial. If you continue arguing, it will be great for the forum because a lot of people will be drawn in when there is contentious subject matter. But it will descend into the kind of foolishness to which any thread on subjects like "dwell time" or "control" seem to descend.
-
Choose your preferred path: argue every point and never make a complete or clear statement while defying others to argue against the points you have not fully fleshed out. Or get it all down and be done with it.

passifid · Jun 29, 2021

Brokenball. Sorry mate about the punch thing you're showing your inexperience with the subject again. See a knockout punch is less about force transfer and more about power (energy/time) combined with how well and how much time the opponent has to react and where it lands. Force is actually less important than most of those which is why I picked it. You're too worried about technical definitions from engineering than thinking about if you missed the entire point. Which was in boxing force =/= knockouts.

And about forgiveness, this is a technical table tennis term often called control. I think you'd use the term tolerance as in a rubber with a high control has a larger tolerance for angles, impact velocity and vector while producing an acceptable end result.

Nomenclature changes depending on field for example in my experience Pi is at a minimum = 3.14
in engineering it is = 3.

#control (science / ability / perception / reality/ circumstanses) )

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Similar threads