Daily Table Tennis Chit Chat

[NextLevel]

The problem with jumping straight into a backswing for the next ball is that against skilled players, they will have a look at your backswing and will give you a ball that's incompatible with the next shot.

For eg if you got to a FH backswing but the ball comes to the BH, or getting to a BH backswing but ball comes to the FH. Worse, there's also long/short variations (especially against combination pips players), and nasty feints.

The benefit of the recovery reset is so that you're ready for all incoming shots instead of anticipating the next shot.

But there is a school of thought that you simply force the opponent to give you a ball that's compatible with your next backswing (via your shot quality) and do a weaker shot (for eg a block etc) if it is outside your preparation. This would then be more about playing the percentages.

You jump into your backswing in reaction to the ball. You don't do it in advance of the ball being played unless you are certain of your anticipation, but that is a common issue with all footwork. It is okay to recovery reset, if it gets you fast enough in rallies do it. I am just parroting what a coach I worked with told me, everyone has their own approach to these things. Recovery reset at best means that you are ending up in positions that don't let you continue the rally, whether you need to reset as part of your transitions is an open question. I am pointing out that resetting as a step is often too slow, but if it makes you play faster then use it

 

[turbozed]

You jump into your backswing in reaction to the ball. You don't do it in advance of the ball being played unless you are certain of your anticipation, but that is a common issue with all footwork. It is okay to recovery reset, if it gets you fast enough in rallies do it. I am just parroting what a coach I worked with told me, everyone has their own approach to these things. Recovery reset at best means that you are ending up in positions that don't let you continue the rally, whether you need to reset as part of your transitions is an open question. I am pointing out that resetting as a step is often too slow, but if it makes you play faster then use it

Since I'm obviously pretty interested in the recovery reset and making it priority at the moment, I'd want to know sooner rather than later if doing it is actually making my responses slower. I also don't want to lead anyone astray with that thread since I'm neither a coach or an experience player, and feel some personal responsibility if I'm passing off bad information (even if the source of the information seems to be knowledgable coaches).

To the extent that a recovery reset is an additional movement you're doing in between strokes, I guess by definition it is taking up more time at least in some respect. So nobody could disagree with that logic.

I've noticed the recovery reset being superfluous in practice as well. For example, when doing Falkenberg it's a lot easier to do the BH, FH steparound, and the wide FH without doing any recovery reset (of course I know where the ball is going).

However, the recovery reset seems to make the BH after the wide FH (to repeat the sequence) much higher quality. The explanation in my mind is that the wide FH puts my weight on my left foot, and I need to push off with my right foot to get to the BH again, so the recovery reset just accomplishes that. Every other motion before that has your weight ending on the correct foot without having to reset. As you mentioned, maybe this could just be due to my poor technique to begin with.

I think it deserves some explanation though that almost every single top pro female player that plays close to the table and engages in fast rallies does the recovery reset/bounce. Now that I've been looking for it, I pretty much see it continuously used when watching pro matches. @Brs posted a great video of Liu Shiwen doing it with some great slow-mo footage in the 'Bounce with the ball' thread. I think if we all pick a random video with top 10 female players playing each other, I think it's fair to say that a recovery reset is being used at least 75% of the time after strokes during close to table rallies.

How does that square with the idea that this is actually making them slower if they all are using it. Isn't close to the table play especially the area where every millisecond counts? Maybe they are not using a recovery reset but are doing something else that I don't understand?

My personal theory after giving it a lot of thought is that in most circumstances, the slight time disadvantage of recovery resetting is made up for by the benefit in balance when you don't have any idea where the ball is going. If you lose out on a few ms, maybe you will have to block instead of have time for a backspin and a higher quality shot, but that's still better than having your balance wrong and missing the table with a bad shot. Furthermore, if you're close to the table and in the correct position, the time between when the ball leaves the racket until your opponent prepares a shot (even if it's a small amount of time) you might as well use to recovery reset. You don't need footwork (you area already where you need to be) and you can't prepare a FH or BH backswing unless you are sure where you opponent is going to put it (choose wrong and you are in trouble).

However, there are definitely scenarios where it doesn't make any sense to recovery reset. For example, if you are further from the table and are out of position on the wide FH or BH side, and your weight is already on the outer foot, it probably makes more sense to just push off immediately and get back to a safer position. In that situation, you need all the time you can get. There are probably many other scenarios like this that I can't think of.

Since I'm a beginner, I'm mostly playing close to the table and my game sense isn't good enough where I can predict what my opponent does so I have nothing to do once I hit the ball outside of gawking at the ball or recovery resetting. The second option seems to vastly improve my game. I assume this will change once the game becomes more complex and I play better opponents.

Do you think this line of thinking can hurt my game in the future, or can you think of any reasons why it might hurt my close to the table play currently?

 

[NextLevel]

Since I'm obviously pretty interested in the recovery reset and making it priority at the moment, I'd want to know sooner rather than later if doing it is actually making my responses slower. I also don't want to lead anyone astray with that thread since I'm neither a coach or an experience player, and feel some personal responsibility if I'm passing off bad information (even if the source of the information seems to be knowledgable coaches).

To the extent that a recovery reset is an additional movement you're doing in between strokes, I guess by definition it is taking up more time at least in some respect. So nobody could disagree with that logic.

I've noticed the recovery reset being superfluous in practice as well. For example, when doing Falkenberg it's a lot easier to do the BH, FH steparound, and the wide FH without doing any recovery reset (of course I know where the ball is going).

However, the recovery reset seems to make the BH after the wide FH (to repeat the sequence) much higher quality. The explanation in my mind is that the wide FH puts my weight on my left foot, and I need to push off with my right foot to get to the BH again, so the recovery reset just accomplishes that. Every other motion before that has your weight ending on the correct foot without having to reset. As you mentioned, maybe this could just be due to my poor technique to begin with.

I think it deserves some explanation though that almost every single top pro female player that plays close to the table and engages in fast rallies does the recovery reset/bounce. Now that I've been looking for it, I pretty much see it continuously used when watching pro matches. @Brs posted a great video of Liu Shiwen doing it with some great slow-mo footage in the 'Bounce with the ball' thread. I think if we all pick a random video with top 10 female players playing each other, I think it's fair to say that a recovery reset is being used at least 75% of the time after strokes during close to table rallies.

How does that square with the idea that this is actually making them slower if they all are using it. Isn't close to the table play especially the area where every millisecond counts? Maybe they are not using a recovery reset but are doing something else that I don't understand?

My personal theory after giving it a lot of thought is that in most circumstances, the slight time disadvantage of recovery resetting is made up for by the benefit in balance when you don't have any idea where the ball is going. If you lose out on a few ms, maybe you will have to block instead of have time for a backspin and a higher quality shot, but that's still better than having your balance wrong and missing the table with a bad shot. Furthermore, if you're close to the table and in the correct position, the time between when the ball leaves the racket until your opponent prepares a shot (even if it's a small amount of time) you might as well use to recovery reset. You don't need footwork (you area already where you need to be) and you can't prepare a FH or BH backswing unless you are sure where you opponent is going to put it (choose wrong and you are in trouble).

However, there are definitely scenarios where it doesn't make any sense to recovery reset. For example, if you are further from the table and are out of position on the wide FH or BH side, and your weight is already on the outer foot, it probably makes more sense to just push off immediately and get back to a safer position. In that situation, you need all the time you can get. There are probably many other scenarios like this that I can't think of.

Since I'm a beginner, I'm mostly playing close to the table and my game sense isn't good enough where I can predict what my opponent does so I have nothing to do once I hit the ball outside of gawking at the ball or recovery resetting. The second option seems to vastly improve my game. I assume this will change once the game becomes more complex and I play better opponents.

Do you think this line of thinking can hurt my game in the future, or can you think of any reasons why it might hurt my close to the table play currently?

Some of it comes down to interpretation. I look at the same video BRS provided and what I see is a player using her legs and her core to backswing and play multiple backhands. I see what she is doing as advanced technique for a backhand backswing driven by the legs and core (which makes it faster). So what BRS sees as a split step is actually built into the technique of her stroke.

In table tennis, players often play out of wide base because it lets you take bigger shots without having to reposition yourself significantly to recover. It is very important to stay in balance many shots will take you off balance. If you are in balance, there is very little need for a recovery reset, which is really just rebalancing yourself when you are off balance. If you are off balance, you need to get ready for the next ball and if you have time, you will rebalance yourself. But the question, just as importantly, is what got you out of balance in the first place, which is really often poor positioning for the initial shot, and over compensation with the arm and the body that takes you off balance. And when you need to play the next ball, the most important thing is to be able to get into position for the legs and core to support the shot. Whether you jump/hop in place into your backswing, or you need to get into balance to do it, I will leave that as a question. MY main point is that a lot of this recovery discussion that makes it an independent movement is largely driven by a conception of stroke technique that doesn't incorporate the use of the legs/core and balance into the stroke itself.

 

[blahness]

You jump into your backswing in reaction to the ball. You don't do it in advance of the ball being played unless you are certain of your anticipation, but that is a common issue with all footwork. It is okay to recovery reset, if it gets you fast enough in rallies do it. I am just parroting what a coach I worked with told me, everyone has their own approach to these things. Recovery reset at best means that you are ending up in positions that don't let you continue the rally, whether you need to reset as part of your transitions is an open question. I am pointing out that resetting as a step is often too slow, but if it makes you play faster then use it

I guess the thing I found is that, without
the recovery reset the balance is usually not in the middle after the weight transfer especially after loops where a lot of power is used. The main goal of is to reset the weight back to middle, and often it doesn't require an extra step, mere a small microbounce on the knees. Also that can be used to adjust for positioning when your opponent brings you wide or off balance on the previous shot. You could argue that resetting weight back to middle / neutral is part of the stroke itself but that is just semantics - it just has to be done.

I actually agree that often, a whole step is far too slow - distilled to its essence it's about resetting centre of gravity and elbow position back to neutral. For me a microbounce with the knees is sufficient to achieve this.

Against players who feint and give awkward placements all the time, this has proven to be extremely useful for me (especially the intermediate step after the push).

 

[OldschoolPenholder]

Si Hing, I am surprised you need translator for the phrase. Is it because it is in simplified Chinese? Or is it that you are comfortable with speaking but not fluent in writing?

i am illiterate. ABC, never learnt or more precisely, dropped out after 2 weeks before the 1st test when i was a kid

lol at me

 

[OldschoolPenholder]

Diablo IV now.

I used to play a lot of Diablo ... loved it.

 

[NextLevel]

I guess the thing I found is that, without
the recovery reset the balance is usually not in the middle after the weight transfer especially after loops where a lot of power is used. The main goal of is to reset the weight back to middle, and often it doesn't require an extra step, mere a small microbounce on the knees. Also that can be used to adjust for positioning when your opponent brings you wide or off balance on the previous shot. You could argue that resetting weight back to middle / neutral is part of the stroke itself but that is just semantics - it just has to be done.

Against players who feint and give awkward placements all the time, this has proven to be extremely useful for me (especially the intermediate step after the push).

It has to be done on powerful strokes that take you off balance, yes. That is not part of the stroke to me per se. But that it has to be done habitually to prepare a stroke? Nah, look at the limitations of your stroke preparation (and follow through) as well before determining that. Though again, to be fair, there are many ways to skin a cat, as Liu Guoliang said, (or something like this is attributed to him) good technique is only found in textbooks where the players are not performing under pressure.

 

[blahness]

It has to be done on powerful strokes that take you off balance, yes. That is not part of the stroke to me per se. But that it has to be done habitually to prepare a stroke? Nah, look at the limitations of your stroke preparation (and follow through) as well before determining that. Though again, to be fair, there are many ways to skin a cat, as Liu Guoliang said, (or something like this is attributed to him) good technique is only found in textbooks where the players are not performing under pressure.

I mainly watch men's table tennis, and yes they all do it at the highest levels.
I think it's because every single stroke is powered by weight transfer - from serves to pushes to flicks to loops to even blocks. And also this intermediate reset allows you to use this to adjust positioning for eg moving backwards after an opening loop to prepare for the topspin rally.

Point at 0:28 shows the speed at Wang Chuqin resets after his stroke quite clearly

I noticed that some of the older gen doesn't do it in certain scenarios. For eg Waldner doesn't jump back into ready position with both feet landing at the same time after his serve, whereas you would be hard pressed to find a top player currently that doesn't do it.

 

[NextLevel]

I mainly watch men's table tennis, and yes they all do it at the highest levels.
I think it's because every single stroke is powered by weight transfer - from serves to pushes to flicks to loops to even blocks. And also this intermediate reset allows you to use this to adjust positioning for eg moving backwards after an opening loop to prepare for the topspin rally.

Point at 0:28 shows the speed at Wang Chuqin resets after his stroke quite clearly

I noticed that some of the older gen doesn't do it in certain scenarios. For eg Waldner doesn't jump back into ready position with both feet landing at the same time after his serve, whereas you would be hard pressed to find a top player currently that doesn't do it.

Wait, so post-serve positioning and short push/over the table flicks then getting out of the table are now recovery steps? Okay then. I see it differently and that is fine. Those are technical details of footwork that one cannot avoid if one wants to continue the rally after serving or playing and over the table stroke.

Obviously if you do any move, even a forehand pivot, you need to get ready to play the next shot if it doesn't end the point. If you are out of position/balance, everything you do will be considered a recovery step. If someone wants to pivot, is the first step they make to get into the pivot a recovery step? Or is it a jump/move into the backswing to set up the shot? If someone wants to engage in cross step footwork, is the first move a recovery step as well?

The broader concept of being ready to play the next shot in balance has many approaches. Hopping into position/balance when you are completely out of position (over the table, just finished a forehand pivot stroke). But making everything that prepares you for a shot a recovery step obscures two things - 1, it is often unnecessary to jump into balance if you finished in balance, you can just prepare for and play the next shot with your stroke preparation/leg usage and 2, many of the demands when out of balance are a result of details of your prior shot selection and technique and those should be investigated as well for optimal sequencing and to see whether your approach to them is optimal.

 

[blahness]

Wait, so post-serve positioning and short push/over the table flicks then getting out of the table are now recovery steps? Okay then. I see it differently and that is fine. Those are technical details of footwork that one cannot avoid if one wants to continue the rally after serving or playing and over the table stroke.

Obviously if you do any move, even a forehand pivot, you need to get ready to play the next shot if it doesn't end the point. If you are out of position/balance, everything you do will be considered a recovery step. If someone wants to pivot, is the first step they make to get into the pivot a recovery step? Or is it a jump/move into the backswing to set up the shot? If someone wants to engage in cross step footwork, is the first move a recovery step as well?

The broader concept of being ready to play the next shot in balance has many approaches. Hopping into position/balance when you are completely out of position (over the table, just finished a forehand pivot stroke). But making everything that prepares you for a shot a recovery step obscures two things - 1, it is often unnecessary to jump into balance if you finished in balance, you can just prepare for and play the next shot with your stroke preparation/leg usage and 2, many of the demands when out of balance are a result of details of your prior shot selection and technique and those should be investigated as well for optimal sequencing and to see whether your approach to them is optimal.

I view the jump to land with both feet after the serve as a recovery reset after the serve, and the intermediate step back after a lunge to receive short balls also as a recovery reset, the jump back to the middle after a crossover step to the wide FH, and also jumping back to middle after a FH pivot too. For BH it depends on your technique, but for eg my BH involves weight transfer to the right leg too so I do need to reset to middle. If your BH or FH technique ends with weight in the neutral position then yes you technically don't need the recovery reset.

It's also very flexible - for eg if you're just doing continuous FH looping without consideration of BH, after weight transfer to the left foot, you simply shift the weight to the middle (recovery reset), and then it can flow on to shifting weight back to the right foot in preparation for the next FH loop. It's less about "stepping" and more about the centre of gravity reset imo.

I think in our discussions - the recovery reset is to be distinguished from the preparation step, it is simply something you do automatically after a shot.

 

[turbozed]

This is a great discussion about the recovery reset. As is often the case, I think that a big reason for differing viewpoints does have to do with the unclear definition of the recovery reset. Whether you view it as built in to the stroke itself or as a separate action after the stroke does seem to be at least partly an issue of semantics.

At least from a beginner's perspective, I think considering it as a separate action and training for it as such has been immensely helpful and is paying obvious dividends in matches and drills where I don't know where the ball is going. From my experience being coached, and watching hundreds of hours coaching on Youtube, I don't think there's that much emphasis on the centering of balance and recovery at the back end of strokes. If you asked me two months ago in what position you are in at the end of a FH stroke, I'd say that your weight is going to be on your left foot (assuming you're right handed) and your racket is in a salute position in front of your face. Similarly on a BH stroke, I would say your racket ends up slightly forwards towards your right, with your weight on your right foot.

It didn't occur to me aim for ending both strokes with my weight balanced and your racket in a ready position in front near my chest. Instead, I just stayed off-balanced, gawked at the ball and waited for the next ball to come before deciding on my next move. I understand a recovery reset isn't always ideal for every situation, since sometimes you actually would be better off skipping the recovery reset and going straight form the 'unbalanced' end position of a stroke right into what you want to do be doing next. But, at least for my level where neither resetting balance nor anticipating the next shot feels natural to me, a recovery reset is almost always going to be the best use of my time when the only other the option in my repertoire is ball watching.

This seems to be one of those instances of the Known-Unknown Matrix. The recovery reset for high level players and pros might be an 'unknown known' already built into their gameplay, where consciously employing it would be a waste of mental energy. For me, however, it was an 'unknown unknown' up until recently, and is at least a 'known known' to me now. Hopefully in the future my recovery reset will be so efficient as to be nearly imperceptible and that I'm so good at it that it becomes indistintiguishable from the backend of my strokes. And maybe I'll instinctually figure out when I can skip it altogether to save time. At that point, I would then be able to proclaim: "recovery reset? naw, I don't need it!" Unfortunately, I don't think that's anywhere in the near future. 😆

 

[Der_Echte]

As for this flat hitting thingy; when GM mention he heard from a local coach that you don't need loop until you reach 2,000 has really pique my interest. Maybe there is a salvation for the likes of me...

This is also very old-school Korean way. Div 1 city players 2000-2200 USATT in 2009 had nearly every one of them having zero BH opening loop vs underspin... like I mean NO ONE did it. at 1600 new player I had a BH loop vs underspin and it was a wonder to them, I was the only player in the city to do it. That is how few did it then...

yes, so many can make it to 2000 without any FH or BH topspin vs underspin... many just got real damn good at stepping around FH for a power hit vs underspin. THAT and not missing 1000 FH in a row fast speed no spin.

Nowadays, with all the modern topspin pro players retiring and opening up clubs... nearly EVERYONE is learning spin in Korea.

So much changes in time and some coaches will not change. Since there isn't a single correct answer, it isn't like this coach or that coach is right, they can both be effective.

For me, i would rather be able to spin, it gives me versatility and safety/confidence.

 

[Gozo Aruna]

Sometimes I surprised myself when I do power hit against backspin ball and the ball goes over at speed of Mach 2.5.

Sometimes I surprised myself when I do power hit against backspin ball and the ball goes into the net at at speed of Mach 2.5.

Then I thought to myself, what is the difference, what is the cause that sometime it is like this and sometime is is like that.

Then it occured to me, if I flat hit with all my might with shoulder power, it goes into the net at speed of Mach 2.5

whereas if I manage to hit it whippy like with power from my waist rotation, the ball clears the net with 2.5cm clearance height at speed of Mach 2.5.

This is the reason, sometimes why it is like this and sometimes it is like that.

I suppose in the latter scenario there is topspin from the body mechanics without me realising it.

 

[blahness]

Sometimes I surprised myself when I do power hit against backspin ball and the ball goes over at speed of Mach 2.5.

Sometimes I surprised myself when I do power hit against backspin ball and the ball goes into the net at at speed of Mach 2.5.

Then I thought to myself, what is the difference, what is the cause that sometime it is like this and sometime is is like that.

Then it occured to me, if I flat hit with all my might with shoulder power, it goes into the net at speed of Mach 2.5

whereas if I manage to hit it whippy like with power from my waist rotation, the ball clears the net with 2.5cm clearance height at speed of Mach 2.5.

This is the reason, sometimes why it is like this and sometimes it is like that.

I suppose in the latter scenario there is topspin from the body mechanics without me realising it.

The powerhit against backspin ball is really hard to get consistent with. There are, however some players who are just supremely talented who can do it.

The question is that of statistics. Against 10 random pushes (with spin variations, mind you a lot of players can put heavy underspin to sideunderspin to no spin and even sidetopspin on their pushes, not to mention all the placement variations) from a skilled player, how many can you land? If your answer is less than 60% it is simply not gonna work. Say you land 60% of the powerhits, and win 70% of the points when it lands, your winning rate off the powerhit is only 60% x 70% = 42% only! You are better off pushing the ball back in this case!

With heavy spin opening loops your landing rate increases dramatically due to the Magnus effect dragging the ball down towards the table and increasing your success rates. And at high spin rates the threat level increases dramatically too because it becomes a lot harder to block and deal with the spin. So the percentages can look like 80% landing rate x 80% win off the loop = 64% point winning rate which is far superior to the powerhit.

 

[blahness]

I suspect why the coaches emphasise hitting first, then looping is that a lot of beginners think that loop = ultra thin tangential contact which is the wrong way to go about it because it's incredibly easy to mess it up when you have a lot of variations in the incoming ball unless you're supremely talented like Timo Boll who has hawk like eyesight. Rather, the initial contact of a good powerloop is almost like a strong hit, except that after the initial hitting of the ball to sink it into the sponge, you roll over the ball to create the topspin - so it ends up being both fast and spinny which is a lethal combination.

So having a strong basics in hitting hard using the body (not just the arm), will pay dividends in the future when learning to powerloop.

There's a recent video by WRM which talks about the type of contact required in a powerloop. It involves very strong, solid contact with the ball first.

 

[Gozo Aruna]

The powerhit against backspin ball is really hard to get consistent with. There are, however some players who are just supremely talented who can do it.

The question is that of statistics. Against 10 random pushes (with spin variations, mind you a lot of players can put heavy underspin to sideunderspin to no spin and even sidetopspin on their pushes, not to mention all the placement variations) from a skilled player, how many can you land? If your answer is less than 60% it is simply not gonna work. Say you land 60% of the powerhits, and win 70% of the points when it lands, your winning rate off the powerhit is only 60% x 70% = 42% only! You are better off pushing the ball back in this case!

With heavy spin opening loops your landing rate increases dramatically due to the Magnus effect dragging the ball down towards the table and increasing your success rates. And at high spin rates the threat level increases dramatically too because it becomes a lot harder to block and deal with the spin. So the percentages can look like 80% landing rate x 80% win off the loop = 64% point winning rate which is far superior to the powerhit.

All these SmartBoyz talk gives me the goosebumps. Me liek, me lieky very much. Me will now try moar spinz.

 

[Gozo Aruna]

I suspect why the coaches emphasise hitting first, then looping is that a lot of beginners think that loop = ultra thin tangential contact which is the wrong way to go about it because it's incredibly easy to mess it up when you have a lot of variations in the incoming ball unless you're supremely talented like Timo Boll who has hawk like eyesight. Rather, the initial contact of a good powerloop is almost like a strong hit, except that after the initial hitting of the ball to sink it into the sponge, you roll over the ball to create the topspin - so it ends up being both fast and spinny which is a lethal combination.

So having a strong basics in hitting hard using the body (not just the arm), will pay dividends in the future when learning to powerloop.

There's a recent video by WRM which talks about the type of contact required in a powerloop. It involves very strong, solid contact with the ball first.

Blahness,

1. Thanks, a lot! This post makes sense. Going back to GM's previous post stating that he heard of coaches who said you don't need to topspin until 2,000 levels, your post addresses this matter precisely, I think.

2. Long time ago when I just started coaching, I too was looping by brushing thinly because that is my amateur way of understanding loop. I was immediately corrected by my coach. He says something along the lines of, " Gozo, no brush too much, ball come to me slow and no power, I want you to hit through the ball, do not give me girlie spin " That is why my FH now is more drive oriented and not brush-looping.

3. I guess this is their pedagogical approach to learning. You learn to flat-hit first, then drive and after you are comfortable with it, then progress to loop-kill. I am now somewhere in-between fast drive / loop-kill level or rather in the beginning stage of learning to loop-kill.

4. Perhaps it is a different pedagogical approach to learning, the western hemisphere way is to learn spin all the way from the beginning to the end. Whereas the eastern hemisphere is to learn how to have strong contact first, then learn spin at a later / advance stage.

5. Now I see more clearly the approach my coach is taking.

 

[NextLevel]

I suspect why the coaches emphasise hitting first, then looping is that a lot of beginners think that loop = ultra thin tangential contact which is the wrong way to go about it because it's incredibly easy to mess it up when you have a lot of variations in the incoming ball unless you're supremely talented like Timo Boll who has hawk like eyesight. Rather, the initial contact of a good powerloop is almost like a strong hit, except that after the initial hitting of the ball to sink it into the sponge, you roll over the ball to create the topspin - so it ends up being both fast and spinny which is a lethal combination.

So having a strong basics in hitting hard using the body (not just the arm), will pay dividends in the future when learning to powerloop.

There's a recent video by WRM which talks about the type of contact required in a powerloop. It involves very strong, solid contact with the ball first.

An article to give this some nuanced perspective.

Modern Topspin Strokes

Butterfly Online | Butterfly Table Tennis

butterflyonline.com

 

[Tinykin]

This, I think, supports your discussion about the modern stroke. And although not mentioned specifically, one can see the salute action.

 

[JJ Ng]

This, I think, supports your discussion about the modern stroke. And although not mentioned specifically, one can see the salute action.

I just looked at the video. This is a great video. But part of it is ridiculous and absurb.

He is great at top spin but I have a couple comments:

there are only two types of top spins: one is higher arc where you use almost mostly the topsheet to grip the ball so the spin has a high arc to it and a bit slow (tacky Chinese rubber is very good at doing that). two is the hitting through the ball while snap your arm and wrist upward like a sling so you engage the sponge; in that case the topspin has a more linear projectory.

That the first and the third top spin he was referring to.

there is no "second" topspin he was referring to. He was basically driving the ball/smashing the ball in that "second" topspin demonstration. I don't consider that topspin at all. I consider that a drive or smash that you put a little bit of top spin to make sure the ball gets over the net.

With the first type of topspin, where you lightly brush the ball with the top sheet only, it is much much easier to be done using a Chinese rubber.

With the second type of topsin, where you engage the rubber and the top sheet at the same time, that's what all pro's do. That's why their topspin is so powerful when you are trying to block it because you have to deal with two sources of energy that the opponent puts onto the ball: a) the forward momentum and b) the rotational energy.

Finally yeah, in order to do top spin well, you have to be completely relaxed and then burst and sling your body, legs/waist/forehand/wrist in one single moment when you contact the ball. That is the only way to get a quality top spin. You cannot be stiff and just "hit/brush" the ball hard. Instead you need to use your body like a sling.

Also once you commit to an angle for your blade, you commit to that angle; there should be no going back. Balls are coming at you fast. Why would you change your bat angle in the middle of your motion.

The instructor is saying, to make your topspin better, don't forget to change the angle in the middle of it and "cover" the ball so you have a longer dwell time. For 99% of us mere mortals out there, that is not really possible and really not reasonable. People are using Super Viscaria with Dignics on both sides. You really think there is any dwell time for you to "cover" the ball and let the ball "stay on the blade" longer? no, the ball was already slung out of the blade by then. Plus, like I said, when you do a topspin (whether the incoming ball has topspin, no spin or backspin), when you mentally assess the type and the amount of incoming spin, you have to adjust your bat angle and be 100% committed to it. The ball will be there in a split second (or less!). Changing your bat angle in the middle of your motion "to cover the ball" is the worst thing you can do your development as a player.