So I have had this discussion or something like it in various contexts with many people. While some might consider this a "strawman" argument, let's remember that there was a time when backhand topspin/looping was considered a stroke for advanced players and wasn't really taught learners to players (forehand as well, but let's leave that aside). The idea was that you need to learn to hit, and then graduate to topspin after a prolonged period of hitting with high consistency. And that if you never learned to topspin and only mastered hitting, that was okay. Some coaches even make students continue hitting for a six-month prolonged period before going to topspin. However, many modern coaches do teach modest hitting and blocking and then move on to topspin as early as possible once basic blocking and hitting consistency has being achieved if in a week or a less than a month.
Starting with a somewhat slower blade, I can understand the rationale for, but that has side effects as well at the extremes. The main rationale for starting with slower equipment is that it is hard for people to control the ball with feeling if they only use stuff that doesn't have much vibration. This is true, but the flipside is whether they are getting any coaching or training in learning how to feel and control the ball and whether they are spending time mastering this at all in situations not under high pressure. Because a lot of people who play just end up forming habits based on how they play and try to win points without trying to go through the process of range training (learning to hit the ball at different speeds and adjust to different incoming speeds and spins by adjusting body position, grip pressure, racket angle etc.) so that they can truly master their equipment. This all happens over time, and it is easy to conclude that because the player cannot do it on day 1, it is a result of the equipment and not a result of the lack of instruction. Sometimes, neither the coach or the player gives themselves room to learn through failure and adjustment. The player wants to hit great topspins from day 1 and if he isn't hitting great topspins, he feels like a loser. Rather than embracing the learning process and knowing that missing can be important feedback as well.
With traditional rubbers, you can block better for sure maybe as a beginner, but does this kind of blocking better really help you when you switch to Tenergy and try to block the same way and find the ball going sky high? Isn't it better, if a player has a coach, to just use the Tenergy and then get taught how to think through and adjust the feeling to master the blocking process?
Again, when I point these ideas out (and ironically as someone who has been a huge defender and fan of slower equipment in the past), I get flack from people who just can't break themselves off from the old school ways of doing things. I also think that there are multiple paths to developing a good player. Many good sponge TT players at the higher levels are good hardbat players even when they mostly play with sponge because the athleticism tends to translate well. The issue is not whether you can create a good player having them start out with slower equipment for a significant period of time. The question is whether it is best to put a player through a prolonged period of using older traditional material if their goal is ultimately to learn the modern game with spin and inverted rubbers. And if it is a good idea, what exactly are they getting from the use of older traditional material that cannot be gotten with good coaching using tensioned, sponged rubber on offensive rackets?
That I think is Heming's point and that is what I think should be discussed to understand his argument fairly. Not pointing at the fact that many players cannot play with modern sponged rackets (many people cannot drive fast cars fast and safely either), but whether it is best to develop a good driver of fast cars by
1) starting them out with a fast car that they should drive slowly and get better with exercises, or
2) start them out with a slow car and expect that if they master the slow car, the skills developed will transfer to driving a fast car with significant benefits in the long term.
Good post. Let me jump in with my opinions:
1) My Chinese coach growing up was exactly like that. I was taught to hit for 6 months to a year. Then when my coach taught me how to loop, that was a big deal. It was like that with all junior players he and his wife coached (I actually had two coaches, husband and wife team). Do I agree with that nowadays? No. I think looping should be taught earlier. But they were old school.
2) However, looping requires much more sensitivity and touch than hitting. So why would anyone start with Tenergy? Were people not able to loop with Sriver or Mark V back in the days? Even without speed glue, I am sure Waldner could put a lot of spins on the ball with Mark V. People were able to loop left and right with the classic rubber. Honestly I like Mark V. The top sheet of Mark V is very grippy. That rubber also lasts forever.
When you loop, you have to learn to brush the ball and the longer the contact between the ball and the top sheet/sponge the better! That is how you can "feel" what it means to loop and "carry the ball" over the net, so to speak. When you teach looping with Tenergy, the ball flies off. What kind of loop is that? All the adult beginners at my club who are set up with Viscaria plus Tenergy 05 on both look like they are "hitting" and not looping. After all, when you touch the ball, and the ball flies right off the bat, that is HITTING. Looping is to brush the ball and like I said, "carry the ball" over the net to the other side. How one can develop that feeling using Viscaria and Tenergy 05 from the get-go is beyond me?
3) Short games. It is easier to develop short games with Sriver and Mark V, similar to Hurricane. It is very hard to develop short games with Viscaria plus double side Tenergy 05. Let us assume adult beginners do not have the same touch and feel that a 7 year old beginners might have, then the former should start with Sriver, Mark V or Hurricane basically.
4) I think Heming Hu 100% does not understand who "adult beginners" are. My background is that I started playing at the age of 13. So I was not 6 nor I was 18 when I started. I feel like I was right in the middle and can see both sides of the story. Meaning, I could see how a coach should train a 6 year old completely different than an 18 year old or a 35 year old beginners. Heming Hu most likely started playing very young. He does not understand how the sport feels and looks like to a 35 year old adult beginner. It is like ZJK's recent coaching videos about forehand loops, etc. I cringe especially when they say to "snap" your wrist. Come on. The wrist is the worst thing you can ask an adult beginner to move when hitting the ball. When you start fooling around the wrist too early while teaching an adult beginner, the ball will fly all over the place. You should start teaching with the elbow moving, then adding waist movement, then adding shoulder movement, and then adding weight transfer from the back leg to the front leg. Finally you add wrist movement at the very end.
I get it. Fang Bo, ZJK, etc. are all professional players who started playing when they were 5 or 6. They do not know how to teach adult beginners. But yet their training videos are the most popular videos on YouTube! So every newbie wants to play like that.
Let us go back. Can you imagine a 40 year old table tennis player, who started receiving formal coaching 3 months ago, get seduced by these videos and start imitating every single point made in those videos? It is a disaster waiting to happen.
They really need to be a decent speed 5-ply wood and start with Sriver or Mark V or Hurricane.
5) However, if you have a 5 year old or 6 year old start playing, I can see how starting with Viscaria and thinner Rozena sheets makes sense. I can see how you can skip Sriver or Mark V.
6) Starting with Sriver or Mark V with adult beginners really is a faster way to get them better, fast. The coach should then monitor the players carefully to see when they should switch to tensor rubbers. A loop is a loop. Going from Mark V to Rozena requires you to change the racket angle. But the feeling is still the same. The principle is still the same. It is like going from Hurricane 3 to Tenergy 05, you also need to change the racket angle. But the principle of looping with Hurricane 3 and Tenergy 05 is still the same.
