3 Tips for Bachhand Topspin against Backspin

3 Tips for Backhand Topspin against Backspin by Chinese Coachhttps://youtu.be/Q69AyZZy0q4

Edited by nicholasy - 02/08/2019 at 6:18pm

BH-Man wrote: Your biomechanics for BH are well ahead of those for your FH. Do you get practice or training on medium BH loops or slow, heavy spin BH loops? I know majority of Korean coaches prefer to train players to fast drive everything, but do you ever get a chance to train those?

I think it looks pretty good. is it suppose to be a backhand kill? 

@ttgold when you write "...and then a motion where you push your racket down,..." do you mean something like this?

Hmmm not sure, I think Pitchford and Calderano have similar backhands, more similar than others mentioned and yet you put them on a different category.

Tt Gold wrote: if you look at the way they play the backhand, you'll see that Liam just throws his forearm into it (simply speaking). Calderano on the other hand actively uses his arm and wrist. Hard to explain, but once Liam lets go of his forearm, he is not in control of the movement anymore. Hugo on the other hand is constantly in control of the stroke. So if Hugo decided to stop after initiating his topspin, the topspin wouldn't work, since he's blocking the acceleration. Liam on the other hand only has to initiate and the momentum does the rest. Watch the blade reviews on table tennis daily's channel. Viscaria and foco blade review.

@ttgold I enjoyed reading the long post above. I think I connect to your idea the best if I add a "punch" factor to the equation. The PH BH puch block is sometimes applied in SH technique on a quick off the bounce block for example and we get a SH punch with a wrist snap on top, I think Harimoto has the best hybrid BH from that perspective. You see FZD as a puncher as well, and like HT, only when he wants to be, I can see that. Pitchford's BH would be an extension of Kreanga's BH, the next step up from KK's, there the wrist snap is just a consequence of the forearm momentum. Does the way I uderstand your idea make sense?

Ttgold has a solid backhand. 

Tt Gold wrote: I don't think I'm complicating the backhand. If anything I'm just giving my thoughts about different techniques of backhands and making them more clear, by dividing them into just two categories. If you look at the videos I mentioned, you'll definitely see the difference. Even just watching the elbow and forearm at the end of the movement clearly shows that the power is applied differently.

You 2 would make a great team, same no compromise, focused mentality that mellows into wise agreements with ourselves after the acknowledgement of our limitations and strengths. He likes what you write, and now how you play in the mix of your posting, he is just among the people who think there is always a danger to milk flies with boxing gloves -a.k.a entering too deep in the details- when analysing and it's good to say it sometimes, keep it simple, just because there is danger in adding complexity for the sake of complexity, simple is complex enough . It's also good to analyse deep and detailed, it's just fun and we can't help it . Both are necessarily interlaced to keep the ball spinning with sense; and direction . Have all a great week!

Tt Gold wrote: fatt wrote: @ttgold I enjoyed reading the long post above. I think I connect to your idea the best if I add a "punch" factor to the equation. The PH BH puch block is sometimes applied in SH technique on a quick off the bounce block for example and we get a SH punch with a wrist snap on top, I think Harimoto has the best hybrid BH from that perspective. You see FZD as a puncher as well, and like HT, only when he wants to be, I can see that. Pitchford's BH would be an extension of Kreanga's BH, the next step up from KK's, there the wrist snap is just a consequence of the forearm momentum. Does the way I uderstand your idea make sense? @nextlevel that's a video of him drilling (in black) a few weeks ago where I kind of like his BH a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB1UvdT0Ix0 maybe I'll take the videos I mentioned and put them in one to make it clear. But if you watch the videos it should already be pretty clear what I mean. Maybe I'll do the video next month or so, as I'm busy now.

NextLevel wrote: Tt Gold wrote: fatt wrote: @ttgold I enjoyed reading the long post above. I think I connect to your idea the best if I add a "punch" factor to the equation. The PH BH puch block is sometimes applied in SH technique on a quick off the bounce block for example and we get a SH punch with a wrist snap on top, I think Harimoto has the best hybrid BH from that perspective. You see FZD as a puncher as well, and like HT, only when he wants to be, I can see that. Pitchford's BH would be an extension of Kreanga's BH, the next step up from KK's, there the wrist snap is just a consequence of the forearm momentum. Does the way I uderstand your idea make sense? @nextlevel that's a video of him drilling (in black) a few weeks ago where I kind of like his BH a lot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB1UvdT0Ix0 maybe I'll take the videos I mentioned and put them in one to make it clear. But if you watch the videos it should already be pretty clear what I mean. Maybe I'll do the video next month or so, as I'm busy now. What I am saying is that both players are trying to get a quality ball.   When they were younger, someone taught them to play a backhand and they did something and got a quality ball.  Then another coach got them and tried to make it better and asked for this instead of that.  And they did what they thought the coach said and changed it. And so on.  You are seeing the end product now and talking about it as if the player is choosing to play that way, but that is not how technique is developed .No one said  'use the elbow like this and the wrist like this and let the wrist finish here and the elbow go there etc."  When people talk about technique like that, as long as they are not saying that this is how the technique was taught, it is okay. What the coaches were trying to do was to teach and get a quality ball.  If you look at Ma Long, he modifies his grip seriously yo play backhand.  So does Timo and Dima.  No one said "well you must do your thumb like this and your wrist like this". It is experimentation to get a quality ball.

I understand what you're saying. But when it comes to the way you describe the technique development I have to disagree. The way you describe it is correct for the beginning of a new technique. Once the technique finds success and gets established, it gets taught to the upcoming generations. As it was said in the video I linked, the Korean team is using this technique now. Or to be more specific, they'll use it on their future generations. I have even seen Jungyungsik ( the tall guy) try to adapt to the new technique. "Well you must use your thumb like this"<- actually coaches tell them about it and it's called a backhand grip. They even tell people what to use at what moment. After that players develop their individual variations of the stroke. But there are some things that are rooted in their training philosophy. Just wait until I'll make a video about it and you'll understand. Or watch the videos I mentioned, which would help in the first place.

zeio wrote: Good to know that someone notices it. It's not exactly new. As far as I could track, WH started transitioning to this biomechanics from the mid to late 2000. Li Xiaodong talks extensively on this concept in one of his tutorials from 2014. Starting from 5:46, he goes over the swing trajectory and how many grass-root coaches teach it wrong. At 7:13, he mentions that at the highest level, the swing direction could go toward your bottom right(for a right-hander) when returning a loop, like the one from WH above.

Edited by NextLevel - 02/12/2019 at 9:04am

When WH or FZD finish a backhand with a down to the right swing trajectory it's usually only the follow through that's going down. On contact with the ball -- the only part that counts -- trajectory is mostly forward and up (check out the 2008 Wang Hao video frame by frame around the 35:05 mark). I think the exaggerated downward follow through is mostly useful for fast recovery, especially when using a curved swing trajectory.

NextLevel wrote: Slowhand wrote: When WH or FZD finish a backhand with a down to the right swing trajectory it's usually only the follow through that's going down. On contact with the ball -- the only part that counts -- trajectory is mostly forward and up (check out the 2008 Wang Hao video frame by frame around the 35:05 mark). I think the exaggerated downward follow through is mostly useful for fast recovery, especially when using a curved swing trajectory. I do think Tt Gold makes a good point in distinguishing between straighter (more "natural") and more elliptical ("pressing" or "ripping") swing trajectories. You can generate more power with an elliptical trajectory because you can fit a longer swing into the same space. The cost is that your swing direction is changing moment to moment so you need better timing. No, contact with the ball.is not the only part of the swing that counts.  This is one of the most dangerous things table tennis engineers say and while it seems self evident and true, it can send someone's technique in the wrong direction.  A swing has a trajectory and the trajectory is not just hat happens at contact but what happens before during and after contact.   The whole trajectory has an effect on the ball produced.  Swinging to press down has a different effect from swinging to open up because the racket path turns the ball in a different way. in all TT strokes,  not just backhand,  there are different approaches to spin generation based oncontact point and follow through.  Some people like to brush from the start and while some people like to hit into the ball with more solid contact and turn the ball to finish their stroke.  And many players use both methods.  I don't think  it is worth making them to kinds of backhands.  It is simply a different approach to the ball.  And in the plastic ball era, the solid contact approach is becoming more dominant because it allows you to hit into the ball more solidly.  But I think everyone just does what they think is right at the appropriate moment given the incoming ball, the actual swings for both approaches look very similar to me  but the mental approach and output is not.

NextLevel wrote: Slowhand wrote: NextLevel wrote: Slowhand wrote: When WH or FZD finish a backhand with a down to the right swing trajectory it's usually only the follow through that's going down. On contact with the ball -- the only part that counts -- trajectory is mostly forward and up (check out the 2008 Wang Hao video frame by frame around the 35:05 mark). I think the exaggerated downward follow through is mostly useful for fast recovery, especially when using a curved swing trajectory. I do think Tt Gold makes a good point in distinguishing between straighter (more "natural") and more elliptical ("pressing" or "ripping") swing trajectories. You can generate more power with an elliptical trajectory because you can fit a longer swing into the same space. The cost is that your swing direction is changing moment to moment so you need better timing. No, contact with the ball.is not the only part of the swing that counts.  This is one of the most dangerous things table tennis engineers say and while it seems self evident and true, it can send someone's technique in the wrong direction.  A swing has a trajectory and the trajectory is not just hat happens at contact but what happens before during and after contact.   The whole trajectory has an effect on the ball produced.  Swinging to press down has a different effect from swinging to open up because the racket path turns the ball in a different way. in all TT strokes,  not just backhand,  there are different approaches to spin generation based oncontact point and follow through.  Some people like to brush from the start and while some people like to hit into the ball with more solid contact and turn the ball to finish their stroke.  And many players use both methods.  I don't think  it is worth making them to kinds of backhands.  It is simply a different approach to the ball.  And in the plastic ball era, the solid contact approach is becoming more dominant because it allows you to hit into the ball more solidly.  But I think everyone just does what they think is right at the appropriate moment given the incoming ball, the actual swings for both approaches look very similar to me  but the mental approach and output is not. Ball contact is the only part of the swing trajectory that counts for what the ball does. A downward follow through after the ball is headed back in the other direction has no effect on the spin or flight path of the ball. Of course follow through counts for recovery, and every part of the swing trajectory is connected to every other part, and everything including what you had for breakfast the morning of the tournament counts for how much power you generate.  If you're talking about how best to conceptualize hitting the ball then I agree that it's not helpful to think only about the moment of contact. In that sense it might be useful to think metaphorically about "turning" the ball with a particular follow through even though your follow through is doing no such thing.  Maybe you should give us a video tutorial on how to apply your advice.   Like I said, the physics is sound but is very misguided for practical TT.  You can show me in your tutorial how you stroke and get a certain effect at impact but follow through very differently on both strokes.  it is just nphysically possible for the rapid continuous motions that are spin strokes.   In other words, your statement is good physics and stupid table tennis.