TT Myth Busters

[mahomedy13]

spot on Carl!
finally someone who doesnt beat around the bush and gives the info openly.

BTW Pnatchwey,being very knowledgeable in science and being a very good table tennis player might not or might not have any correlation,but i am quite certain that many good players dont give a damn about physics while they are playing

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

I have a blade that is really crisp. It has a lot of pop.

Okay, wait, a blade that is fried till it is crisp? Pop as in soda or pop like a fire cracker?

Darn, Carl has a blade that is nice and crispy, it is crunchy, not chewy, but it was over cooked and the blade has too much carbonation and sugar. Also, it seems to keep exploding.

Oh, that is not what you meant by crisp with a lot of pop?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rajah*]

Ignorant people are just ignorant, whether they play table tennis or any other sport or no sport at all.

Some of the "myths" in this topic actually are not myths but proven facts. Its pointless to argue if a player has control and the rubber doesnt. The game is played with a player carrying a paddle so there you go. Keep it simple, there is no need to overanalyse the game, especially when one misses the big picture.

Sports need science yes, but the arguement of who or what has "the control" over the ball does not matter at all.

A player who is not ignorant of his technique and knows what is good and effective technique at every different ball, does not need science to tell him which rubber is good and which is not, he can test his equipment by playing and trying and evaluate what suits him and what doesnt

Thankyou! Hence i posted comment no.70
Talented players learn faster practical teaching on and off the table learning discussions..stupid once remain unteachable and have verypoor development

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[Pnachtwey]

BTW Pnatchwey,being very knowledgeable in science and being a very good table tennis player might not or might not have any correlation,but i am quite certain that many good players dont give a damn about physics while they are playing

There is no correlation between knowing science and being able to play TT or any sport. Knowing physics allows one to get quickly to what or how the stroke must be performed but the problem is the execution. Steven Hawking obviously can't play TT but he would quickly know what is myth and what is fact.

Most of my effort in dispelling myths is aimed at the manufacturers that will tell any lie to get you to buy the latest blade or rubber when there really can't be that much difference between anything new and what already exists. I really believe that technique trumps all. I also believe that similar rubbers can all generate the same trajectory. It may take a very slightly different stroke but if one can generate the same trajectory with Relflectoid as one can with T05 then what? I realize it will take more effort to make the same trajectory with Reflectoid relative to T05 but most of the time one doesn't hit the ball that hard just so the ball does land on the table.

The second point is that TT players mislead new players with their erroneous terminology. Paddles and rubbers don't generate power or energy unless you burn them.

A third point is that I don't care how good a player is. People aren't calibrated machines. Experience players have their opinions and preferences but they are not fact. Here is an example where an organization doesn't trust the pros.
http://machinedesign.com/fea-and-simulation/replacing-testing-sports-gear-fea
In industry I know there is no substitute for fully instrumenting a machine and recording the data at the fastest rate possible..


If the pros had the definitive answer there would be no debate. However, on another forum the debate about dwell time went on and on and on. No one would do the simplest math that would prove that the dwell time is really very short. This included people that claimed to have PhDs in physics or nulcear science. Where were the pros? They didn't have an answer either. Finally Baal did what he calls his napkin estimation which was approximately right and much closer to the truth that what most of the forum believed. I had high speed videos. I knew all the time what the range of dwell time can be but I also had video proof because I have a high speed camera that can take video at speeds up to 38K FPS with proper lighting. I have posted the videos on this site in the past.

 

[izra]

There is no correlation between knowing science and being able to play TT or any sport. Knowing physics allows one to get quickly to what or how the stroke must be performed but the problem is the execution. Steven Hawking obviously can't play TT but he would quickly know what is myth and what is fact.

Most of my effort in dispelling myths is aimed at the manufacturers that will tell any lie to get you to buy the latest blade or rubber when there really can't be that much difference between anything new and what already exists. I really believe that technique trumps all. I also believe that similar rubbers can all generate the same trajectory. It may take a very slightly different stroke but if one can generate the same trajectory with Relflectoid as one can with T05 then what? I realize it will take more effort to make the same trajectory with Reflectoid relative to T05 but most of the time one doesn't hit the ball that hard just so the ball does land on the table.

The second point is that TT players mislead new players with their erroneous terminology. Paddles and rubbers don't generate power or energy unless you burn them.

A third point is that I don't care how good a player is. People aren't calibrated machines. Experience players have their opinions and preferences but they are not fact. Here is an example where an organization doesn't trust the pros.
http://machinedesign.com/fea-and-simulation/replacing-testing-sports-gear-fea
In industry I know there is no substitute for fully instrumenting a machine and recording the data at the fastest rate possible..


If the pros had the definitive answer there would be no debate. However, on another forum the debate about dwell time went on and on and on. No one would do the simplest math that would prove that the dwell time is really very short. This included people that claimed to have PhDs in physics or nulcear science. Where were the pros? They didn't have an answer either. Finally Baal did what he calls his napkin estimation which was approximately right and much closer to the truth that what most of the forum believed. I had high speed videos. I knew all the time what the range of dwell time can be but I also had video proof because I have a high speed camera that can take video at speeds up to 38K FPS with proper lighting. I have posted the videos on this site in the past.

what's the napkin estimation? high speed camera is pretty much all that is needed to make anyone see how short dwell time actually is.

i believe the reason why a lot of people think dwell time is longer than it is lies in the feeling that you get in your hand from the bat when a rubber gets distorted by a ball. it's quite different from the feeling that you get when you flat hit and it fools you into thinking that dwell time is much longer than it actually is.

 

[passifid]

i have to disagree with OP.
so for example
in the most simple scientific way i can think.
power of a blade is a combination of energy lost as flex(hooke's law), ease of bat speed generated(weight and wind resistance) and weight.
so that would simply give me kinetic energy and some of the lost energy by spring damping.
BUT
i'm so happy i get reviews with "some flex" and "fast and powerful" rather than COR values spring constants and wind resistance values.
because not everyone will be able or want to take the time to know exactly how the values work and have to work out the amount of kinetic energy imparted on one arm speed and another would be stupid.

it would be like someone going into a motorbike dealership and asking which one is faster, which commonly will mean on bikes which one has a higher acceleration due tot he gentleman's agreement restricting all modern super-bikes to 186mph. and instead of saying this one has a better 0-60 time, he says well, this one has the highest overall amount of power produced by the burning of petrol hydrocarbons however due to the extensive power losses in the inefficiency of the combustion engine and the difference in design of the cams and bore and stroke it has a lower acceleration.

no one would ever buy a bike from that man, it's just not needed. the point is if you know what they mean which faster or more powerful in terms of bat obviously meant which has the least damping effect and highest kinetic energy transfer as they didn't mention themselves. so the assumption on that to make a comparative choice would be power produced by the person is the same(which is a common theme in science, if you want to test the effect of one thing keep the other variables the same)

TLR
the reason why we say "power" "flex" and "speed" rather then "spring constant" and "damping effect" is because it inst and shouldn't be a requirement to do mathematics mechanics or physics to As level to understand that one bat when you try to hit a ball the same speed imparts a higher speed than the other(or velocity as long as you're not going to try and trick me and are taking the 0 point as where it leaves the bat and the direction of travel as the positive direction.)

 

[Persistence TT]

i have to disagree with OP.
so for example
in the most simple scientific way i can think.
power of a blade is a combination of energy lost as flex(hooke's law), ease of bat speed generated(weight and wind resistance) and weight.
so that would simply give me kinetic energy and some of the lost energy by spring damping.
BUT
i'm so happy i get reviews with "some flex" and "fast and powerful" rather than COR values spring constants and wind resistance values.
because not everyone will be able or want to take the time to know exactly how the values work and have to work out the amount of kinetic energy imparted on one arm speed and another would be stupid.

it would be like someone going into a motorbike dealership and asking which one is faster, which commonly will mean on bikes which one has a higher acceleration due tot he gentleman's agreement restricting all modern super-bikes to 186mph. and instead of saying this one has a better 0-60 time, he says well, this one has the highest overall amount of power produced by the burning of petrol hydrocarbons however due to the extensive power losses in the inefficiency of the combustion engine and the difference in design of the cams and bore and stroke it has a lower acceleration.

no one would ever buy a bike from that man, it's just not needed. the point is if you know what they mean which faster or more powerful in terms of bat obviously meant which has the least damping effect and highest kinetic energy transfer as they didn't mention themselves. so the assumption on that to make a comparative choice would be power produced by the person is the same(which is a common theme in science, if you want to test the effect of one thing keep the other variables the same)

TLR
the reason why we say "power" "flex" and "speed" rather then "spring constant" and "damping effect" is because it inst and shouldn't be a requirement to do mathematics mechanics or physics to As level to understand that one bat when you try to hit a ball the same speed imparts a higher speed than the other(or velocity as long as you're not going to try and trick me and are taking the 0 point as where it leaves the bat and the direction of travel as the positive direction.)

Yeap, my thoughts exactly, keeping all the other variables the same, rubbers blades do have "control" "speed" "flex" and "dwell time". "More" dwell time is a term misunderstood by pnacthwey, everybody knows that dwell time is very short, but everyone can understand that some blade+rubber combos have more dwell time

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

The difference between 1 microsecond and 1.5 microseconds is 50%!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NextLevel]

Guys,

You all do have to know that this is what pnatchwey does. He's a bit of a literalist when it comes to language.

Lots of smart comments in this post from all parties. While technique is king, equipment does matter. If you don't think so, buy Tenergy 25 and use it. What you learn may make you smarter about equipment.

And if it doesn't, then you really need to work on your technique even more.

 

[Der_Echte]

There entirely TOO many variables going on to mathematically represent what is going on precisely.

Hand Pressure and the way one generates bat speed are very important factors. You cannot represent them in an equation.

 

[Persistence TT]

Guys,

You all do have to know that this is what pnatchwey does. He's a bit of a literalist when it comes to language.

Lots of smart comments in this post from all parties. While technique is king, equipment does matter. If you don't think so, buy Tenergy 25 and use it. What you learn may make you smarter about equipment.

And if it doesn't, then you really need to work on your technique even more.

Well there is nothing wrong with that in fact sometimes is good to be precise but there is no need to overdo it.

Language is used to communicate with each other isnt it? So if you say to me "frenzy, my bat is flexible and produces tons of spin" obviously you are not talking about a bat that just sits there and spins balls out of nowhere. You have a certain technique that you use which results in a statement like that.

Yes it would be more accurate to say "with my level of technique I believe that this bat produces lots of spin" . But really there is no need for that, and what I mean is even hobby players can understand that some rubbers produce more spin and speed than others, even if they dont have perfect technique.

Perfect technique unlocks the full potential of a rubber+blade combo,in every case we need both good technique and good paddle to play modern table tennis with spin and speed

Anyway der echte summed it up pretty accurately and with one sentence only

"There entirely TOO many variables going on to mathematically represent what is going on precisely."

 

[NextLevel]

I don't agree that there are too many variables to mathematically represent what is going on precisely is a significant barrier to analyzing table tennis. After all, this doesn't prevent mathematical analysis of tennis or other forms of sports science.

The real problem for me with people like pnatchwey is that they don't study the sport seriously or play at a high enough level to make smart statements about table tennis technique so this is their way of becoming the smartest person in the room - rather than develop good technique or learn what that entails, they make it a matter of trivial arguments, which is what they are likely good at. Then they claim the main reason they can't get good technique is some aspect of their physical condition (possibly true but besides the point).

Now, if the guy who wrote this blog was talking about table tennis myths etc., whether you agree with him or not, he is not into semantics/syntax and is clearly a true fan of the sport:

https://thoughtsontabletennis.wordpress.com/

The difference in attitude to the sport and approach is clear - the models used are thoughtful and intelligent with good applied mathematics intended to illuminate, not obfuscate, likely because he keeps in mind the practical player when he is writing. It's still often challenging, but a brilliant blog. One of my favorite articles is the one on handling slow spinny topspin.

 

[Tinykin]

Just had a look at that site. Very interesting.
Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Pnachtwey]

There aren't too many variables. The idea is to get close enough. Some of the variables will have little effect on play. Usually the simulations can have errors less that what the variable would change. For instance, do you really think that all sheets of T05 play exactly the same? On another site someone posted a link to how Andro models their rubbers. Did you guys read the article about modeling golf ball impacts? No one has published anything like this for TT.

That blog has a lot of bogus data in it. The serving second article is really an it depends on the player. There was a thread about this somewhere and many, like me, said they would rather serve first because their serves are relatively strong.

Another article in the blog showed a concave motion saying it is superior to the the swing and paddle attitude being relatively constant. The problem with changing the paddle attitude during the time of contact is that if you hit the ball a millisecond early or a millisecond late the ball will go in completely different directions. No one's timing is that good.

The real problem for me with people like pnatchwey is that they don't study the sport seriously

Study what, the myths?
My current coach is Chinese. He is 19 yr old and has been in the US for 1 year. You would think he would teach the "Chinese stroke" but actually he teaches strokes with minimal motion like Bret Clarke's golden elbow. He is one of the best players in the country but at 19 yr old what does he know? He has the ability to play TT but he went to a TT academy instead of high school so he doesn't have even a decent high school education. Most of what there is to know is knowing what works and doesn't work. I call that being game savvy. Another thing is how to analyze opponents. I am very good at analyzing things. I have made a lot of money analyzing things. Much more that only a few TT pros.

or play at a high enough level to make smart statements about table tennis technique

I like to point out to the coach what mistake he made. None of us is perfect. It is easy mistakes like hitting the ball too early or late or simply not moving.

so this is their way of becoming the smartest person in the room

Smarter than you anyway. I have caught you so many times.
The other two forums are full of idiots. After 5+ years they never figured out who I am. That includes you.
This forum figured it out in little time.

rather than develop good technique or learn what that entails,

You are making assumptions. I once complimented you on your back hand saying it was like Bret Clarke's golden elbow or what my coach teaches. Personally, I don't care what the stroke is called or made as long as it works but the golden elbow like Bret Clarke and my coach teach is efficient and allows quick play close to the table. The golden elbow minimizes degrees of freedoms and chances for error unlike the concave motion in the blog. Engineers like efficiency and minimizing motion.

they make it a matter of trivial arguments, which is what they are likely good at. Then they claim the main reason they can't get good technique is some aspect of their physical condition (possibly true but besides the point).

This comes from a person that wrote in another forum that I know nothing about tension rubbers. NextLevel must believe in tensioned rubbers and has yet to tell me where the tension is. This comes from a person that said it is difficult to loop chopped balls with T25 when it is just a matter of technique of the tangential paddle speed matching the rotational speed of the ball. I have played and play with T25. It is as easy to loop back balls with T25 as any other inverted rubber. The trick is matching the spin on the ball. I have video showing me looping back balls thrown from a Newgy 25 with the speed set to 25. I had to move the Newgy back from the table to get the balls to land. The balls thrown by the Newgy at speed 25 have lots of back spin and the flight distance and timing simulates a strong chopper.

Once you get use to T25 you can do just about anything with it. The stroke will have to change to get the same trajectory but there is no impulse that T25 can generate that Reflectoid or T05 can't. It just takes a slightly different stroke.

NextLevel, has anybody put meeting you on their bucket list let alone be asked for autographs in multiple countries? I doubt it.
You still haven't figured out there is a huge difference between knowledge and execution.

 

[mahomedy13]

So what if you are famous?does it make you a better player?

Because people don't know who you are,you can label them as idiots?that's stooping very low.

 

[mahomedy13]

And you are even comparing the salary of tt players with an engineer.

Its like comparing the price of platinum with some cheap metal.it doesn't make sense to do so.

 

[passifid]

There aren't too many variables. The idea is to get close enough. Some of the variables will have little effect on play. Usually the simulations can have errors less that what the variable would change. For instance, do you really think that all sheets of T05 play exactly the same? On another site someone posted a link to how Andro models their rubbers. Did you guys read the article about modeling golf ball impacts? No one has published anything like this for TT.

That blog has a lot of bogus data in it. The serving second article is really an it depends on the player. There was a thread about this somewhere and many, like me, said they would rather serve first because their serves are relatively strong.

Another article in the blog showed a concave motion saying it is superior to the the swing and paddle attitude being relatively constant. The problem with changing the paddle attitude during the time of contact is that if you hit the ball a millisecond early or a millisecond late the ball will go in completely different directions. No one's timing is that good.


[/COLOR]Study what, the myths?
My current coach is Chinese. He is 19 yr old and has been in the US for 1 year. You would think he would teach the "Chinese stroke" but actually he teaches strokes with minimal motion like Bret Clarke's golden elbow. He is one of the best players in the country but at 19 yr old what does he know? He has the ability to play TT but he went to a TT academy instead of high school so he doesn't have even a decent high school education. Most of what there is to know is knowing what works and doesn't work. I call that being game savvy. Another thing is how to analyze opponents. I am very good at analyzing things. I have made a lot of money analyzing things. Much more that only a few TT pros.



I like to point out to the coach what mistake he made. None of us is perfect. It is easy mistakes like hitting the ball too early or late or simply not moving.


[/COLOR]Smarter than you anyway. I have caught you so many times.
The other two forums are full of idiots. After 5+ years they never figured out who I am. That includes you.
This forum figured it out in little time.


You are making assumptions. I once complimented you on your back hand saying it was like Bret Clarke's golden elbow or what my coach teaches. Personally, I don't care what the stroke is called or made as long as it works but the golden elbow like Bret Clarke and my coach teach is efficient and allows quick play close to the table. The golden elbow minimizes degrees of freedoms and chances for error unlike the concave motion in the blog. Engineers like efficiency and minimizing motion.


This comes from a person that wrote in another forum that I know nothing about tension rubbers. NextLevel must believe in tensioned rubbers and has yet to tell me where the tension is. This comes from a person that said it is difficult to loop chopped balls with T25 when it is just a matter of technique of the tangential paddle speed matching the rotational speed of the ball. I have played and play with T25. It is as easy to loop back balls with T25 as any other inverted rubber. The trick is matching the spin on the ball. I have video showing me looping back balls thrown from a Newgy 25 with the speed set to 25. I had to move the Newgy back from the table to get the balls to land. The balls thrown by the Newgy at speed 25 have lots of back spin and the flight distance and timing simulates a strong chopper.

Once you get use to T25 you can do just about anything with it. The stroke will have to change to get the same trajectory but there is no impulse that T25 can generate that Reflectoid or T05 can't. It just takes a slightly different stroke.

NextLevel, has anybody put meeting you on their bucket list let alone be asked for autographs in multiple countries? I doubt it.
You still haven't figured out there is a huge difference between knowledge and execution.

the simple fact is unless you're a research scientist or a qualified phd in physical aerospace or aeronautical engineering i refuse to take your scientific statements as fact without appropriate proof, methodology sample size and statistics.

the mere fact you said that blades don't have any difference in speed because the most important variable(arm speed) is changeable means i kind of find it hard to believe you have any kind of scientific basis. This is purely because scientists love to obsess over variables and controlling them in every aspect and even doing experiments to find out their effect. however this is possibly very wrong and you're just saying "technique over equipment" which would be a MENTAL stance considering your "Lets be 100% perfect in all aspects of language or else you're a fool" stance.

if you're a top 100 player then well you're great at TT even if not you're probably better than me. but then you probably are not a professional scientist which leads me to think i have a better idea of science. but if you ARE a professional scientist i cant believe you taking the mad stance on language. i get MARKED DOWN for using scientific language when i am meant to be talking to patients(laymen) and so its all just mental to me.

 

[NextLevel]

You would think he would teach the "Chinese stroke" but actually he teaches strokes with minimal motion like Bret Clarke's golden elbow.

The funniest thing about this is that if you asked Brett what the primary model for his forehand stroke is, he would tell you Chinese technique and would also tell you that when doing forehand looping, the golden elbow rule is less applicable.

In the end, it's easy to pretend that you know more than you do.

 

[Persistence TT]

guys ball placement,point of contact on the blade,ball curve and feeling of the ball are variables which can alter from player to player so up to a certain point science in table tennis is ok, after that point it is no longer needed.

Science is for understanding the game better for those who want a different approach. Too much theory is only needed if you are a global sales blade or rubber manufacturer.

But then again there are quite numerous handmade blades made by manufacturers who dont know crap about science

The only scientific approach which is really worth to study for table tennis is the infinite element analysis.

All the companies use it nowadays to create rubbers and blades with better performance

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Here is a video that sums things up as they stand:

One thing that's definite: the discussion is, at best, on the level of pre-k philosophy; but, since it is not even at it's best, it is more like retard-philosophy.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk