Throw angle of rubbers

[Baal]

Surely what you can see for tenergy, also applies to other rubber like evolution, where we can draw a similar spectrum of throw. Then we can also compare the throw/arc of tenergy and evo, where I feel mx-p is somewhere between 80 and 64.

Maybe there are some nuanced differences, but it's hard to imagine a given level player with one rubber cannot adapt to this other similar rubber. For example I used bluefire M2 for a few months, and then Evolution mx-p of same esn generation, and then Tenergy 80 which I think has closest arc to m2. And found without changing much would only lose about 1-2 points per game at first, then play same as before after few weeks. If I now change to 05, it would take slightly longer because loop would arc more, but blocks get more tricky, and if from 05 to another high thrower it would also be a relative smaller change.

I completely agree again. When I went from T05 to MX-P (for price), within a couple of days, my level was exactly the same (even though as you say, it is closer to 80 or 64 really). Same thing for me with EL-P. All these rubbers are intended for the same kind of player even if they are not all the same. Now, if you made me play with a Hurricane, that would be a different story. I think, anyway.

 

[Archosaurus]

@tropical

Let me tell you, if you try to think of the game like an engineer, you will have a bad time.

If you think you are such an expert and that you can explain the game so well with your scientific method, you will just proceed in an egoistic intellectual jerkoff as you have been doing. Life is not so simple that you can describe it accurately in all situations by using and contrasting data, and table tennis is even more-so complex!

 

[NextLevel]

It would probably have been better for Debater to do those tests with a higher quality rubber. Giant Dragon has such power quality control that it is hard to know whether he got truly comparable rubbers or not.

 

[Baal]

Yes. I would have chosen Tenergys. Still it illustrated nicely some of the phenomena relevant to the thread and the complexity of sorting it out. Table tennis rubber is a (very) mechanically complex structure and it moves at different angles and speeds relative to a ball that is spinning.

 

[Ilia Minkin]

No time for such. Just go to the point.

My point is that overthinking can be counterproductive. I think that the Tenergy video is the best illustration of the "throw angle" and difference in trajectories of different rubbers. IMHO that is enough to illustrate the idea.

 

[NextLevel]

My point is that overthinking can be counterproductive. I think that the Tenergy video is the best illustration of the "throw angle" and difference in trajectories of different rubbers. IMHO that is enough to illustrate the idea.

Not just overthinking but accusing people of being lazy/wrong for failing to simplify to your satisfaction something you refuse to study seriously.

 

[Baal]

For example, when someone asks the question "throw angle is a relation of angle of contact/speed of the blade/speed/spin of the incoming ball. What else?" and then begins to insult people who list some of the other parameters that are involved :

Adhesion of rubber (grip and tackiness"), pip structure (length, diameter, three-dimensional shape, density); surface sheet thickness and elasticity; sponge properties (hardness, pore structure, thickness, elasticity), and indicate that the throw angle is a complex product of all of these things as well as the things he mentions. So there is no simple answer and it is certainly challenging to come up with standardized tests.

In short: The table tennis engineer in all of his glory (in this case one who finds it difficult to write a grammatically correct sentence).

(By the way, the Btfly video is really good, I agree it really shows it nicely).

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Well, I've enjoyed a bit of sitting back and enjoying the drama. And man I had some good popcorn to go with it.

I think I am going to give my old story about SmashFan, Dora and the Jonyer H and the Cornilleau Hinotek All+.

So, back when this happened, I was pretty bad. I was a flat hitter. A friend (SmashFan) asked me to try two blades. One was a Butterfly Jonyer H (five ply Hinoki) and the other was a Cornilleau Hinotek All+ (Hinoki-Limba-Ayous-Limba-Hinoki).

So I hit with both and I felt like the Hinotek was faster, felt better and had more "control". Hands down, I liked it way better. The Jonyer actually felt pretty lame to me: mushy and slow.

Then Dora Kurimay hit with both and she said the Jonyer was way better. Faster, more control, better feel. And she said she didn't see any reason to use a blade as slow as the Hinotek if it had such poor control.

So, I was thinking to myself, "what is going on here!" But I realized, given the fact that Dora is a 2400+ player and I totally suck, that something must be going on.

Several years later SmashFan is trying to get me to use his blade because of how much he loves it. It is this same Jonyer blade. So I wasn't too excited about the idea. And I pick it up, and man, it feels like a magic blade. It feels frickin' amazing. It has this great flex. It grabs the ball like nothing I've ever felt. I got so much spin with it. And it is pretty fast.

What was the difference? I was looping instead of hitting. My technique had gotten pretty decent. My contact is way different. My level of spin and ball quality on my loops is decently better that my overall level which is pretty mediocre from my perspective.

So this Jonyer feels totally different when you make flat contact as compared to when you make spin contact.

So, that time, picking up they blade, I realized, that, when different people of different levels review the same piece of equipment, their reviews really could vary drastically.

I think things like control and throw angle suffer similar fates. What is easy to control for a player who hits flat or blocks more of the time will be different than what is easier to control for someone who makes brush contact instead.

Like, for me, T05 has great control for look h and counterlooping because the amount of spin it helps me generate helps me arc the ball onto the table much more easily. Whereas, someone who blocks or hits flatter may not appreciate how much T05 grabs the ball which, on a flatter contact could be experienced as "Spin Sensitivity."

Different techniques with the same piece of equipment will produce different results.


Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

 

[tropical]

Overthinking? You guys may need to re-evaluate your brain again. There is nothing overthinking here when I asked for a simple explanation of throw angle. That seems to be the other way around; i.e. under-thinking. Some explained very well, some didn't. Some went to far in saying there is no such thing as simple explanation and began lecturing others. Anything can be explained scientifically, especially when you are bringing a "definition" of a character in rubber. I don't think I went too far yet. I was only saying this term "throw angle" can be tested and defined much better by using special tests.

The difficulty in how to create special tests is to have everyone agree on some common terms, conditions, etc. I am surprised for the lack of knowledge on standardization from some people claiming he is a scientist here. In industry, for many years, even engineers have problem choosing materials for their application as manufacturers were not willing to standardize testing conditions. Same problem here, except that there is no big organization to force these manufacturers to sit down together and come up with the answer for the ignorant mass.

I know from speed, spin, and control values that I can "somewhat" pick a rubber or racket possibly suitable to my style. Now when it come to throw angle Energy05 explained it very well and I now think it makes sense. The videos from Butterfly also explained it very well. Not you Baal, as your explanations just created more confusion in my mind and others or the other way around to give the benefit of the doubt.

It is probably better to compare throw angle within a family of rubber from the same company, as no manufacturers agree on how to define and test them. A 38 throw angle from Tenergy 05 may not be exactly the same as 38 throw angle from a Yasaka rubber, but it will give someone who is familiar with Tenergy have a good idea how the rubber can benefit his/her game.

 

[Baal]

Sorry I confused you. I guess it was too much information, too many parameters, for the intellect of the mighty engineer.

Of course, the very first post I wrote on this thread (and the third post in this thread) was this:

A lot of the time when TT forum people talk about the throw angle, it is a short-hand term for talking about the racket angle they need to use to hit their favorite forehand counter, drive, or loop (or block). So, for example, if you are looping with your forehand, and your opponent is just blocking the ball back to you, you may need to use a more closed racket angle with Tenergy 05 than with some other rubbers. It's not because that rubber is super fast, it's because of the high angle or arc trajectory the ball seems to take coming off your racket, and if you don't close up your racket angle, the ball will arc off the table.

Seems that was just too much for you.

 

[tropical]

Sorry I confused you. I guess it was too much information, too many parameters, for the intellect of the mighty engineer.

Ha ha .. here we go again. Less lecturing the better for us please.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

One more detail. This is not exactly throw angle. But perhaps it is related: BALL ARC.

The arc of the ball produced by the Magnus Effect is directly impacted by the spin to speed ratio on the shot in question.

A ball that is very fast and does not have much spin will have less of an arc than a ball the same speed with A LOT of spin. And a ball that is slower but has that same amount of spin as the ball that is fast that has A LOT of spin will get more arc than the faster shot too.

I know that stuff is completely obvious. But part of what it means is: a rubber that is slightly slower that gets a little more spin, will allow a player who has the technique to use those properties to arc the ball higher with the comfort of knowing that the ball will arc down and land safely on the table. Whereas, a player who doesn't have the technique to use those properties may still keep hitting the net or hitting the ball long.

An example: T05 is a little slower than T64 and gets more spin. So, it is easier to aim a little higher, put a little more arc on the ball and feel safe that the ball will land. At least, provided you have the technique to spin the ball enough.


Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

 

[Tenergy05]

For example, when someone asks the question "throw angle is a relation of angle of contact/speed of the blade/speed/spin of the incoming ball. What else?" and then begins to insult people who list some of the other parameters that are involved :

Adhesion of rubber (grip and tackiness"), pip structure (length, diameter, three-dimensional shape, density); surface sheet thickness and elasticity; sponge properties (hardness, pore structure, thickness, elasticity), and indicate that the throw angle is a complex product of all of these things as well as the things he mentions. So there is no simple answer and it is certainly challenging to come up with standardized tests.

In short: The table tennis engineer in all of his glory (in this case one who finds it difficult to write a grammatically correct sentence).

(By the way, the Btfly video is really good, I agree it really shows it nicely).

Just a heads up you're grouping system attributes (tackiness) with system responses (throw angle). It's possible and common to characterize a system with no knowledge of attributes, which is what Debater was doing in that video: he tries some inputs into the system, and records the outputs.

At the very least we should agree that the rubber acts deterministically, or else play would not be possible. That means it has a certain throw, even if it isn't a scalar value.

The disagreement here is over how hard it is to connect the attributes of the rubber to that value. There are statistical methods for doing this, or by building a model in something like solidworks. I don't think it's "easy", but at least for the second approach there's a video from Andro of ESN doing exactly that.

 

[Tenergy05]

One more detail. This is not exactly throw angle. But perhaps it is related: BALL ARC.

The arc of the ball produced by the Magnus Effect is directly impacted by the spin to speed ratio on the shot in question.

A ball that is very fast and does not have much spin will have less of an arc than a ball the same speed with A LOT of spin. And a ball that is slower but has that same amount of spin as the ball that is fast that has A LOT of spin will get more arc than the faster shot too.

I know that stuff is completely obvious. But part of what it means is: a rubber that is slightly slower that gets a little more spin, will allow a player who has the technique to use those properties to arc the ball higher with the comfort of knowing that the ball will arc down and land safely on the table. Whereas, a player who doesn't have the technique to use those properties may still keep hitting the net or hitting the ball long.

An example: T05 is a little slower than T64 and gets more spin. So, it is easier to aim a little higher, put a little more arc on the ball and feel safe that the ball will land. At least, provided you have the technique to spin the ball enough.


Sent from The Subterranean Workshop by Telepathy

I think relating the arc (spin/speed ratio) to throw isn't too hard, even intuitively. Since by the way we're defining that, it's the ratio of the ball coming off the rubber in the "speed" direction at a right angle, which creates no spin. Compared to coming off sideways, which creates the spin.

More sideways here is what people refer to as throw, you get a two-for-one so to speak. Both are what attacking players are looking for: More spin or arc, and more efficient forward angle to attack with.

 

[Jabugo]

Overthinking? You guys may need to re-evaluate your brain again. There is nothing overthinking here when I asked for a simple explanation of throw angle. That seems to be the other way around; i.e. under-thinking. Some explained very well, some didn't. Some went to far in saying there is no such thing as simple explanation and began lecturing others. Anything can be explained scientifically, especially when you are bringing a "definition" of a character in rubber. I don't think I went too far yet. I was only saying this term "throw angle" can be tested and defined much better by using special tests.

The difficulty in how to create special tests is to have everyone agree on some common terms, conditions, etc. I am surprised for the lack of knowledge on standardization from some people claiming he is a scientist here. In industry, for many years, even engineers have problem choosing materials for their application as manufacturers were not willing to standardize testing conditions. Same problem here, except that there is no big organization to force these manufacturers to sit down together and come up with the answer for the ignorant mass.

I know from speed, spin, and control values that I can "somewhat" pick a rubber or racket possibly suitable to my style. Now when it come to throw angle Energy05 explained it very well and I now think it makes sense. The videos from Butterfly also explained it very well. Not you Baal, as your explanations just created more confusion in my mind and others or the other way around to give the benefit of the doubt.

It is probably better to compare throw angle within a family of rubber from the same company, as no manufacturers agree on how to define and test them. A 38 throw angle from Tenergy 05 may not be exactly the same as 38 throw angle from a Yasaka rubber, but it will give someone who is familiar with Tenergy have a good idea how the rubber can benefit his/her game.

To have some standardization for determining the throw of every rubber produced would just add cost to the product, and the benefit to the consumer would probably not be worth all the trouble. Seriously, it just isn't practical. It's like asking the running shoe industry to have exact specifications for the rebounding properties of every single mid-sole incorporated in every running shoe that comes out.

Your whole point to finding specific throw angles of rubber is probably to facilitate your choosing a rubber most suitable for your playing style. But any given day, your style may shift slightly. Like Carl's story, you may improve and discover the throw angles you're looking for aren't even the best for you anymore.

A better and more practical solution would be to have a table tennis shop with a blade/rubber testing program. Better yet, just have some tester paddles, table, and robot in shop. Runners get to test out running shoes. Tennis players can try out rackets with testing programs at pro shops. A rubber/blade test program would make better sense than hard data numbers on some rubber packaging that only very experienced players could relate to. You would know right there and then if the rubber is what you're looking for. Throw angle alone would only be one aspect of a rubber. If you wanted to search for rubber strictly by standardized test numbers, it would be like learning to swim from an instruction manual.

 

[Baal]

If you want a a list of measured parameters that allows someone to know with high confidence that they will like a rubber before actually trying it, how many numbers would there need to be? Let's say it is 6. I suspect that wouldn't be enough but let's just say that. If it is 6, how does that help someone new? How would they know which numbers are right for them? Eventually they might get an understanding of it by actually playing with different rubbers to see how they work for various aspects of their game, and they would have to do some experimenting to see what there comfort range is for each of the 6 parameters (and maybe some parameters won't matter to some subset of players). But they still have to relate the parameters to their own experience (not to mention they blade they are using).

So we are back where we started.

Some people might say that you ought to be able to get by with fewer numbers. Watch the second video I posted to see that this really isn't going to cut it, or just play with a bunch of different stuff to see.

 

[Baal]

The rubber I am using now I tried ONLY because of things people wrote about iit n TT forums. There is nothing else quite like this rubber in my decades of playing. I like it a lot. The descriptions from NL and Der Echte were really good. I have no idea how a set of numbers could convey how this stuff plays in a way that would be readily intelligible to anyone let alone an inexperienced player. But when I actually played with it, I could immediately feel what they were describing and I was happy because the result in my play was what I had hoped it would be based on those descriptions.

(Of course, I have also bought stuff I didn't like based on internet descriptions and most of the time I try to hit with a clubmate's setup before dropping very much cash on something new, but sometimes I feel lucky and just buy something sight unseen based on forums).

 

[NextLevel]

Baal, you are too old fashioned. People are using blood tests to predict whether they will get a disease with good certainty. One day the TT engineers all be vindicated by an app you can use to scan a rubber from your phone and tell what the throw, spin and speed are.

 

[watcher]

Baal, you are too old fashioned. People are using blood tests to predict whether they will get a disease with good certainty. One day the TT engineers all be vindicated by an app you can use to scan a rubber from your phone and tell what the throw, spin and speed are.

It should also calculate your estimated rating if you were to play with those rubbers!

 

[Der_Echte]

The rubber I am using now I tried ONLY because of things people wrote about iit n TT forums. There is nothing else quite like this rubber in my decades of playing. I like it a lot. The descriptions from NL and Der Echte were really good. I have no idea how a set of numbers could convey how this stuff plays in a way that would be readily intelligible to anyone let alone an inexperienced player. But when I actually played with it, I could immediately feel what they were describing and I was happy because the result in my play was what I had hoped it would be based on those descriptions.

(Of course, I have also bought stuff I didn't like based on internet descriptions and most of the time I try to hit with a clubmate's setup before dropping very much cash on something new, but sometimes I feel lucky and just buy something sight unseen based on forums).

Hahahaha, Der_Echte gets credit for coherently articulating something hahahaha.

Serious though, I have always said, instead of a number things assigning a performance number, one must do a dynamic test of the equipment using several frequently used stroke situations to know for oneself how it performs.

I have always been on record of saying how I like Dan's approach to a video review, which does exactly that - test the equipment in relevant stroke situations.

I usually go the way of Baal and try out live wherever possible, usually at a club where I by chance run into some one with different gear.

Normally, a new product uses fluffy fluff to market and get by, but karis was for real, I switched 2 days before the most important US tourney of my life... with a very positive result, I went up .5 to 1 level using it.