Ideas for makeshift return board/spin "measurement" device

[Archosaurus]

Hey.

If I don't have a person on hand to block my shot, I've tried to use the method of letting the ball hit a wall once it comes off the table and checking how much it rolls forward to measure topspin, but I've deemed it a bit unreliable. If the wall is irregular, or very rough or very smooth, it'll be inconsistent and remove most of the spin like hitting into anti, so the ball might not spin so much on the way back if it hits the wall square on as it usually does.

So I thought about propping up a table tennis bat at an open angle on the table so that you can loop onto it and in theory the ball would propel itself upwards while still spinning, maybe come down on your side and then start spinning hard forward. That way you could measure the spin on your loop based on the traveling speed and arc.

Has anyone tried this? If so, what problems, or hopefully complete lack of, did you run into? Is there a better way, preferably something compact and inexpensive? Will the ball not respond correctly to being thrown upwards off the bat? Etc.

Thanks.

 

[thekleifheit13]

It's not awful compact but you could get plywood from a local store and order 10 training rubbers from eacheng. The total cost should be around $50 USD, at least it would be where I am. You could push your table up against a wall and lean the plywood (covered with the training rubbers) up against the wall at near-vertical, making a non-mounted return board.

 

[Archosaurus]

It's not awful compact but you could get plywood from a local store and order 10 training rubbers from eacheng. The total cost should be around $50 USD, at least it would be where I am. You could push your table up against a wall and lean the plywood (covered with the training rubbers) up against the wall at near-vertical, making a non-mounted return board.

That'd work too. Although not terribly compact to transport to a table not at home and I'd probably rather make one out of a bat or two because I can hit in relatively the same spot all the time. Being able to prop it up securely closer to the net, too, would be good. I'm thinking of some kind of wooden fabrication or common household object(s) to use to do that.

Maybe some people have already attempted this (Most likely) and they have some ghetto engineering magic to share.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Ideas for makeshift return board/spin "measurement" device

If you use a plain wall, it is great. If you have a lot of spin, it will come back as backspin and you will need to learn to loop it. If you don't have much spin, the ball won't have much spin. That was why your shots were not spinning back to the wall in your other video. You did not have very much spin.

With just a plain wall, you will get good practice looping vs backspin.

And if the wall is killing the spin, which most walls won't, but is possible, then you get to practice looping vs dead balls which is good too.


Sent from Deep Space by Abacus

 

[Archosaurus]

If you use a plain wall, it is great. If you have a lot of spin, it will come back as backspin and you will need to learn to loop it. If you don't have much spin, the ball won't have much spin. That was why your shots were not spinning back to the wall in your other video. You did not have very much spin.

With just a plain wall, you will get good practice looping vs backspin.

And if the wall is killing the spin, which most walls won't, but is possible, then you get to practice looping vs dead balls which is good too.


Sent from Deep Space by Abacus

A very spinny loop onto a wall will come back as backspin? How exactly does that work unless the wall is an inverted rubber surface and it will grab the ball and then possibly change the spin direction...?

EDIT: Ah, yes. Backspin, from the perspective of the wall. It will spin towards the wall. Brainfarted for a moment there.

I'm inclined to think my wall is strange. because other walls don't do what it does. If I serve a heavy backspin into another wall, it'll drop down a bit then go back towards me for quite some distance. If I serve into that wall, it'll float back and just bounce on the spot for the most part. I haven't empirically tested it, but I feel it kills spin.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Well, inverted rubber will turn your topspin to topspin and the wall will usually not change your spin, so, if it goes in topspin, it comes back without the spin changing and topspin going the other way becomes backspin. Excellent to practice against. You move the table near enough to the wall for it to bounce back on the table. And the rest is that you need a little accuracy to keep the ball coming back to the table.


Sent from Deep Space by Abacus

 

[Archosaurus]

Yeah, I figured that out when I got up and walked around a bit. I was thinking backspin that spins towards me, not the wall. Sorry, wall!

I actually haven't tried that. The wall is closer, so it should also show the spin more accurately because there's less air resistance and crappy angle to potentially lower it. Could also be a good way to do slow drills.

I can prop up my table's other side to use as a return board essentially. Is that any good or would I want the ball to bounce on that side first then hit a vertical surface?

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

This is someone's homemade return board:

But if you just put your table that close to the wall, that should be all you need to do.

It will be weird. But it will be good practice vs backspin.


Sent from Deep Space by Abacus

 

[Archosaurus]

The simplest option seems best. I'll try both variations. Especially because backspin is easier to spin against.

I do agree that my loops probably weren't that spinny in the video, but do take the arc relative to speed into consideration. There should be enough spin to throw it off the edge if you block it like a drive.

Although, my backhand often leaves the racket at a 45 or so degree throw angle and lands mid table with even more angle, because I find it a lot easier to grab the ball with the backhand especially if the return is very slow and spinny. So it could be technique. I am assuming that it is and trying to fix it.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

This is related to your PM. I want you to see if you can film you doing the first exercise in the video below. I just want to see something. It should be very easy to film this.

Sent from Deep Space by Abacus

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Okay, thanks for the PM response.

Archo sent me the video in a PM. Can anyone else see why he is having such trouble spinning the ball? There are two actual reasons that I see clearly. I will let other people decide also. Good job making this video. It really will help you understand what is going on!

Sent from Deep Space by Abacus

 

[SilentRain]

Okay, thanks for the PM response.

Archo sent me the video in a PM. Can anyone else see why he is having such trouble spinning the ball? There are two actual reasons that I see clearly. I will let other people decide also. Good job making this video. It really will help you understand what is going on!

Sent from Deep Space by Abacus

He is not spinning the ball. He is throwing the ball into the blade rather than rolling it on. Therefore the blade contacts the ball flat rather than brushing it which = no spin. Thats why the racket angle is so flat on the second bounce as a close angle (say 60-75 degrees) will cause the ball to skid and fall off the blade or bounce away from the blade rather than spinning upwards. If there was any spin, the backspin generated will bite into the rubber and roll upwards and convert into topspin afterwards which is why in exercise 2, you reverse the blade so that it will roll back up and the cycle repeats.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Yep. Not only does it show that Archi does not make brush contact well, it shows he does not have great control of his blade face and that his rubbers are actually too dead to really spin the ball.

This is the device Archi needs:

 

[NextLevel]

He is not spinning the ball. He is throwing the ball into the blade rather than rolling it on. Therefore the blade contacts the ball flat rather than brushing it which = no spin. Thats why the racket angle is so flat on the second bounce as a close angle (say 60-75 degrees) will cause the ball to skid and fall off the blade or bounce away from the blade rather than spinning upwards. If there was any spin, the backspin generated will bite into the rubber and roll upwards and convert into topspin afterwards which is why in exercise 2, you reverse the blade so that it will roll back up and the cycle repeats.

Could you post a video of yourself doing the same drill so we can see the contrast? Curious.

 

[SchemeSC]

There is a video where Brett Clarke demonstrates this same exercise, where he contrasts subobtimal and optimal methods of spinning the ball. But I cannot find it for the life of me.

 

[NextLevel]

There is a video where Brett Clarke demonstrates this same exercise, where he contrasts subobtimal and optimal methods of spinning the ball. But I cannot find it for the life of me.

Yes, I was going to point that out, but that would be a bit tough on archo and what we are looking for isn't obviously visible in the first video anyway, though experienced players know it is there.

 

[NextLevel]

There is a video where Brett Clarke demonstrates this same exercise, where he contrasts subobtimal and optimal methods of spinning the ball. But I cannot find it for the life of me.

 

[ttmonster]

Yes totally , the forearm muscles are too stiff , but the blade + rubber is dead as a dodo . Unless he gets better equipment he won't be encouraged enough to change technique , right now I don't think changing technique is going to give him substantially different results

 

[NextLevel]

Now the drill in the Killerspin video is not quite the same as the drill in Brett's video. But both are good spin tests. The drill in the killerspin video is more like this.

 

[NextLevel]

Yes totally , the forearm muscles are too stiff , but the blade + rubber is dead as a dodo . Unless he gets better equipment he won't be encouraged enough to change technique , right now I don't think changing technique is going to give him substantially different results

Exactly - I don't think the technique is that bad, but the rubbers will reward nothing but trash.