What is the most important area to jump from 1900 to 2100?

[joshmak10]

Technique always is the key root to being a good player. Fitness and mindset play a secondary role. You may be the most athletic player, most unshakable player mentally, but if you have the worst technique in the world, you aren’t going to put any balls on the table. It’s why old grandpas at the club who have been playing for years and years still consistently beat some decent players because they have perfected their technique

 

[ThePongCommenter]

Technique always is the key root to being a good player. Fitness and mindset play a secondary role. You may be the most athletic player, most unshakable player mentally, but if you have the worst technique in the world, you aren’t going to put any balls on the table. It’s why old grandpas at the club who have been playing for years and years still consistently beat some decent players because they have perfected their technique

Judging someone's fitness by their body fat isn't always reliable, but yes.

 

[joshmak10]

Judging someone's fitness by their body fat isn't always reliable, but yes.

Of course, but just giving the most obvious example of “bad fitness”

 

[ThePongCommenter]

The point was that I felt my topspin game, fh and bh felt like an 8 relative to the players in my area and around my level. You're free to disagree. But how could you possibly even form an opinion, you haven't seen me play any of the players around me? When I play these 1900 players in my local club and area, I generally feel I have some advantage in topspin points, and I feel I am losing in the serve/receive areas.

My estimation is based off of what I know to be a 1900 level in California. From what I saw in the clip with Victor there are major issues with your forehand technique and recovery that prevents you from being an 8/10 at any 1900 level, but unless you post more video against people your level, it is just a guess.

 

[NextLevel]

Technique always is the key root to being a good player. Fitness and mindset play a secondary role. You may be the most athletic player, most unshakable player mentally, but if you have the worst technique in the world, you aren’t going to put any balls on the table. It’s why old grandpas at the club who have been playing for years and years still consistently beat some decent players because they have perfected their technique

This is true in a superfluous way. Technique has to be good enough to put the ball on the table, but whether that means the technique has to be textbook optimal is a different story. Ultimately, for the level a player plays at, suboptimal technique that puts the ball on the table is more important than optimal technique that doesn't remain consistent under pressure. My point is that one can play reasonably well below and even to a lesser degree at the highest level with suboptimal technique that checks the boxes of ball control and consistency. The bar to check the boxes of 2000 level technique are far lower than one might think. And there are players with clearly suboptimal technique adapted with consistency and athleticism and great ball reading that have 2200 level consistency and effectiveness because of their feeling.

In the end, you have to see the results and then work backwards to explain the effectiveness and limitations of the technique. The devil is always in details.

 

[ThePongCommenter]

This is true in a superfluous way. Technique has to be good enough to put the ball on the table, but whether that means the technique has to be textbook optimal is a different story. Ultimately, for the level a player plays at, suboptimal technique that puts the ball on the table is more important than optimal technique that doesn't remain consistent under pressure. My point is that one can play reasonably well below and even to a lesser degree at the highest level with suboptimal technique that checks the boxes of ball control and consistency. The bar to check the boxes of 2000 level technique are far lower than one might think. And there are players with clearly suboptimal technique adapted with consistency and athleticism and great ball reading that have 2200 level consistency and effectiveness because of their feeling.

In the end, you have to see the results and then work backwards to explain the effectiveness and limitations of the technique. The devil is always in details.

I mostly agree, and while a lot depends on your definition of suboptimal technique or style, the plastic ball has created a more narrow definition of what "proper" technique is. And the work required or adaptation needed to make "suboptimal" styles and technique work at a higher amateur level is probably more than it used to be.

 

[songdavid98]

Agree with NextLevel.
If your techniques are Ma Long level, but you blunder like a 1300, you are 1300. Keeping the ball on the table is more important.


Some related chess analogies.

 

[TensorBackhand]

Random question:
When you step in for a short ball (either to push or flick), you would step in with your right foot to hit the forehand on the right side of the table.

On the left side of the table when you go to hit with your bh, should you step in with your left foot or right foot? I usually step with right foot unless the ball is far on my left.

 

[songdavid98]

Random question:
When you step in for a short ball (either to push or flick), you would step in with your right foot to hit the forehand on the right side of the table.

On the left side of the table when you go to hit with your bh, should you step in with your left foot or right foot? I usually step with right foot unless the ball is far on my left.

correct. you are doing it correctly.

 

[NextLevel]

I mostly agree, and while a lot depends on your definition of suboptimal technique or style, the plastic ball has created a more narrow definition of what "proper" technique is. And the work required or adaptation needed to make "suboptimal" styles and technique work at a higher amateur level is probably more than it used to be.

If you mean the athletic offensive component is more dominant now, I agree. I am not sure though whether the plastic ball caused it or the growth of youtube and the exporting of TT knowledge. Though less spin on the plastic ball made it easier for athletic and offensive styles to dominate more easily, it also makes it easier for the other styles to be consistent, just not as disruptive, as long as they are athletic. But you may have something else in mind.

One argument against being too focused on athleticism is that the rankings didn't really change with the arrival of the plastic ball. Top players before and after were largely the same. And after adjusting, most amateurs kept the same ratings.

My main point though was that if I am 1800, you can work from there to discuss things related to the quality of my mental game and technique. But saying that technique is everything is almost a rejection of the importance of things like reading and adapting to spin, anticipating placement and feeling, all of which might be at least equally as important depending on the context of someone's game. If someone blocks with optimal technique, that might help them with many things, but someone who can block the ball on the table with suboptimal technique is quite fine if it helps them stay in the rally vs someone who blocks with supposedly optimal technique, can't read spin, and keeps hitting the ball off the end or into the net. Of course one could argue that technique cannot be separated from ball reading. Then the question becomes more about what you mean by technique...

 

[Dr Evil]

One argument against being too focused on athleticism is that the rankings didn't really change with the arrival of the plastic ball. Top players before and after were largely the same. And after adjusting, most amateurs kept the same ratings.

Very interesting subject. The rankings didn't change much at the top, but they did change. In the early years of the transition, younger and more athletic players tended to adapt their games more easily, and spin-based styles suffered the most. The extreme case is Harimoto. Hard to believe that without the equipment change he would have been top 20 at age 14. By now the game's adapted with more emphasis on early timing and fast exchanges and less on spin-based point construction (and slightly shorter average point length, contrary to expectations). Doesn't map perfectly onto athleticism, but I think the connection is there.

 

[NextLevel]

Very interesting subject. The rankings didn't change much at the top, but they did change. In the early years of the transition, younger and more athletic players tended to adapt their games more easily, and spin-based styles suffered the most. The extreme case is Harimoto. Hard to believe that without the equipment change he would have been top 20 at age 14. By now the game's adapted with more emphasis on early timing and fast exchanges and less on spin-based point construction (and slightly shorter average point length, contrary to expectations). Doesn't map perfectly onto athleticism, but I think the connection is there.

I think this take on Harimoto's game doesn't add much, juniors didn't flood the top 10, Harimoto was still a singular prodigy and he played a similar style as a junior when winning titles before the advent of the plastic ball, Yes the plastic ball changed things, but it didn't send Harimoto from being the top junior in Japan to something else.

 

[ThePongCommenter]

If you mean the athletic offensive component is more dominant now, I agree. I am not sure though whether the plastic ball caused it or the growth of youtube and the exporting of TT knowledge. Though less spin on the plastic ball made it easier for athletic and offensive styles to dominate more easily, it also makes it easier for the other styles to be consistent, just not as disruptive, as long as they are athletic. But you may have something else in mind.

Yes this is what I meant

One argument against being too focused on athleticism is that the rankings didn't really change with the arrival of the plastic ball. Top players before and after were largely the same. And after adjusting, most amateurs kept the same ratings.

My main point though was that if I am 1800, you can work from there to discuss things related to the quality of my mental game and technique. But saying that technique is everything is almost a rejection of the importance of things like reading and adapting to spin, anticipating placement and feeling, all of which might be at least equally as important depending on the context of someone's game. If someone blocks with optimal technique, that might help them with many things, but someone who can block the ball on the table with suboptimal technique is quite fine if it helps them stay in the rally vs someone who blocks with supposedly optimal technique, can't read spin, and keeps hitting the ball off the end or into the net. Of course one could argue that technique cannot be separated from ball reading. Then the question becomes more about what you mean by technique...

My initial point was that you have to adjust - for older players playing the same way, if they didn't adjust, they paid for it. And adjusting itself can be very difficult for people who have learned to play the game a certain way for a long time. Basically, I do think styles have converged certainly at the pro level and I think also at the amateur level.

Basically, if someone wants to learn the game now with thin brush strokes they can probably still make that work but the effort required to do so would probably be far greater than someone who learns from the start to hit through the ball, and this style would probably pose a threat to less people on average than it may have before.

 

[NextLevel]

Yes this is what I meant


My initial point was that you have to adjust - for older players playing the same way, if they didn't adjust, they paid for it. And adjusting itself can be very difficult for people who have learned to play the game a certain way for a long time. Basically, I do think styles have converged certainly at the pro level and I think also at the amateur level.

Basically, if someone wants to learn the game now with thin brush strokes they can probably still make that work but the effort required to do so would probably be far greater than someone who learns from the start to hit through the ball, and this style would probably pose a threat to less people on average than it may have before.

100% agree. I still use thin brush against some juniors but I also still struggle much more than before because the game is just not as effective so you need power finishing shots and you also need to be ready for countertopspins more than blocks. Even brush now is somewhat athletic to generate significant danger.

 

[ThePongCommenter]

100% agree. I still use thin brush against some juniors but I also still struggle much more than before because the game is just not as effective so you need power finishing shots and you also need to be ready for countertopspins more than blocks. Even brush now is somewhat athletic to generate significant danger.

Yep or if you brush relatively slow and heavy you have to make sure you keep it deep, many training programs I see are placing early emphasis on the counterloop. I guess because it is easier to do and the risk reward balance shifted more towards reward since the ball won't really go flying if your racket angle is slightly "incorrect". Hybrid rubbers probably play into that too. Going down a rabbit hole now lol

 

[Dr Evil]

I think this take on Harimoto's game doesn't add much, juniors didn't flood the top 10, Harimoto was still a singular prodigy and he played a similar style as a junior when winning titles before the advent of the plastic ball, Yes the plastic ball changed things, but it didn't send Harimoto from being the top junior in Japan to something else.

Quite a coincidence that Harimoto's singularly prodigious rise through the pro ranks coincided with the equipment change. No doubt he was one of the best 12-14 year olds ever, but he wouldn't have had those results so early if not for the temporary decline in level as players adjusted to the plastic ball.

 

[NextLevel]

Quite a coincidence that Harimoto's singularly prodigious rise through the pro ranks coincided with the equipment change. No doubt he was one of the best 12-14 year olds ever, but he wouldn't have had those results so early if not for the temporary decline in level as players adjusted to the plastic ball.

You may be right, but again, we haven't had other 12-14 year olds performing at that level since the plastic ball was created so is it that Harimoto was a singularly prodigious guy or the plastic ball is the dominant explanation? My point is that since other players are haven't done it with the plastic ball either, the Harimoto example doesn't add any substance to changes as Harimoto was a prodigy with the prior ball and we haven't been overrun with a ton of prodigies since the ball changed.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

You may be right, but again, we haven't had other 12-14 year olds performing at that level since the plastic ball was created so is it that Harimoto was a singularly prodigious guy or the plastic ball is the dominant explanation? My point is that since other players are haven't done it with the plastic ball either, the Harimoto example doesn't add any substance to changes as Harimoto was a prodigy with the prior ball and we haven't been overrun with a ton of prodigies since the ball changed.

the sister qualifies, no?

 

[Dr Evil]

You may be right, but again, we haven't had other 12-14 year olds performing at that level since the plastic ball was created so is it that Harimoto was a singularly prodigious guy or the plastic ball is the dominant explanation? My point is that since other players are haven't done it with the plastic ball either, the Harimoto example doesn't add any substance to changes as Harimoto was a prodigy with the prior ball and we haven't been overrun with a ton of prodigies since the ball changed.

My point is that Harimoto's singular rise was made possible by a singular fall in pro level. This was a temporary situation caused by the players having to adjust to the plastic ball. If 12 year old Harimoto (or a similar prodigy) came along now, he wouldn't have the same hard-to-believe results. The pro players are back to being too good -- and too accustomed to how the game can played with the plastic ball -- for a skinny 12 year old to handle no matter how talented and skillful he might be.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

My point is that Harimoto's singular rise was made possible by a singular fall in pro level. This was a temporary situation caused by the players having to adjust to the plastic ball. If 12 year old Harimoto (or a similar prodigy) came along now, he wouldn't have the same hard-to-believe results. The pro players are back to being too good -- and too accustomed to how the game can played with the plastic ball -- for a skinny 12 year old to handle no matter how talented and skillful he might be.

I can understand your point and definitely an interesting one.
if I was to counter against your argument
CNT B team had the 40+ ball more than 12 months before it was given to any other country to test. Maybe even up to 18 months "head start".

I actually feel HT is way too good of a player to just put it as the ball to be the cause.
It may have aided - when others were playing worse
but his incline and he parked himself in the top 10, top 5 for many years.
only few in CNT is ahead of him and many have the youth and "more time" on ball adjustment.

His sister is another prodigy - in fact, one that is even more stronger than HT imo.
it is just that the CNT women's depth is so much stronger than the mens that you don't see how good Miwa is, in terms of results.

When she was 9-11, she was beating CNT b team players that were aged 13~15.

And I'm not going to write off more Japanese young prodigies
that place is a manufacture for prodigies!