|
|
Concave vs. Convex Loop (Which is which/better?) |
Post Reply | Page <123 |
Author | ||
zeio
Premier Member Joined: 03/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 10833 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
For a start, the first two threads are reviews done by a renowned reviewer from Taiwan under the name of 桂花田. He often cites material from that magazine to support his assertions. While I find most of those insights informative, certain portrayals within those articles are exaggerated and hence not representative of what is really taking place in reality. The picture in which the lady demonstrates the service motion where the ball literally rolls over the rubber from end to end is one such depiction, as opposed to this real-world example. The last one is about how the thread starter feels the European stranglehold on the forehand loop stroke is ruined at the hands of the current crop of loopers, e.g. Boll, Maze etc. He uses the tacky/grippy image to help illustrate that their having the blade face parallel with the endline of the table as the root cause of poor power and jerky transition, as opposed to the angled contact of the Chinese, when seen from the side. Yet, the picture of Wang Liqin's loopkill clearly shows otherwise. What the OP fails to take into account is the fact that different situations call for different strokes. Shot placement, contact point, body stance and so on all have an effect on one's swing. |
||
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare) + Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃) = 184.8g |
||
Sponsored Links | ||
king_pong
Silver Member Joined: 06/29/2010 Location: Minneapolis Status: Offline Points: 889 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I think the statement is correct -- that it is easier to get a blistering brush-loop with tacky rubber, while bouncy-grippy rubber more easily facilitates a loop-drive -- but since it is possible to do either with either rubber, the CNT has discovered that driving with their harder-tackier rubber is, for some reason, better than the traditional brush-looping. Perhaps it is the arc that it produces, outlined in the article that Lexsha posted above -- http://protabletennis.net/content/mechanics-table-tennis. |
||
racquetsforsale
Gold Member Joined: 10/02/2010 Location: at the table Status: Offline Points: 1268 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
This seems to go against the perception that most Chinese players drive or hit through the ball more than their European counterparts when looping. Even a famous Chinese coach has stated the same thing.
|
||
king_pong
Silver Member Joined: 06/29/2010 Location: Minneapolis Status: Offline Points: 889 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thank you. This is very informative. The author definitely knows what he is talking about. It is a little bit over my head, but I will read it more than once. I think I've trained in a FH stroke that follows the negative-arc trajectory, but have recently become aware that many powerful top pros' FHs follow a more positive-arc (Ma Long being the most outstanding). I'm experimenting with that stroke trajectory now. It seems to be a more powerful FH, with the additional benefit of recovering to a more neutral position for a possible backhand should the opponent force the situation. The article mentions the importance of stroke recovery, but does not specify which stroke arc is to be preferred for that. I feel that the positive-arc gives the best advantage for a potential follow-up backhand. |
||
racquetsforsale
Gold Member Joined: 10/02/2010 Location: at the table Status: Offline Points: 1268 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I think the concave and convex trajectories occur naturally --- the more you swing forward and less upward, the more convex ("positive" arc in the article Leshxa referenced) your swing is; and the more you swing upward and less forward the more concave ("negative" arc) your swing is.
You probably already use the concave stroke when brush looping against underspin and the convex stroke when looping against topspin close to the table.
|
||
Leshxa
Gold Member Joined: 01/03/2009 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1917 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I think this will help a lot. Look at the section 14.
http://protabletennis.net/content/mechanics-table-tennis |
||
Back to table tennis...
|
||
king_pong
Silver Member Joined: 06/29/2010 Location: Minneapolis Status: Offline Points: 889 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
That's great, but what do these threads say? I saw in the last one that it appeared that they were addressing the issue of blade angle during the stroke (either closing or opening). It appeared that they were implying that the closing-stroke made a lower trajectory, but I couldn't read the text. Can you translate?
|
||
JohnnyChop
Gold Member Joined: 05/02/2010 Location: Toronto Status: Offline Points: 1159 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Isn't LGL short pip forhand? That would definitely change the stroke!!!
|
||
729 Battle 2 Yasaka Goibao 5 Nittaku Fastarc G1
Nittaku Fastarc G1 Butterfly Cypress Max |
||
popperlocker
Gold Member Joined: 03/24/2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1753 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Depends on your equipment and physical attributes. The CNT members all use slightly different body mechanics. The only person that can answer your question is yourself. Try out both concave and convex and decide which one you like better.
Some rubbers are great for concave looping and others for convex looping. So it depends what you're using too. As I was watching your example video, I feel it's a crime to classify the CNT members as convex or concave. I view it more complex than that, like walking. Every person walks a little different, because they have different: body weights, height, muscles, bone structure, training, influences, handicaps, injuries, abnormalities, personalities, mood, etc.
|
||
zeio
Premier Member Joined: 03/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 10833 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
This is in fact a legit topic worth digging for.
The Japanese magazine 桌球王国 World Table Tennis has published articles regarding the differences in the loop stroke when playing tacky and grippy rubbers. It is claimed that the grazing loop stroke is more suited for tacky rubbers, whereas the hitting loop stroke is suitable for high tension or tensor rubbers. A picture of Wang Liqin pulling off a loopkill is even included. Parts of those articles have been in wide circulation among various forums. http://www.pingpang.info/bbs/dispbbs.asp?id=215087&authorid=83433&boardid=2 http://www.pingpang.info/bbs/TopicOther.asp?t=5&BoardID=235&id=201008 http://sundns.org/discuZ/viewthread.php?action=printable&tid=266525 Edited by zeio - 06/21/2012 at 6:33am |
||
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare) + Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃) = 184.8g |
||
king_pong
Silver Member Joined: 06/29/2010 Location: Minneapolis Status: Offline Points: 889 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Do "which" anymore? Can you elaborate? Thank you.
|
||
kenneyy88
Premier Member Joined: 01/06/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4074 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I don't think many pros do any of these anymore. Closest thing is like Ma long swinging up, then on followthrough he closes the racket face.
|
||
doraemon
Gold Member Joined: 05/14/2007 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 1738 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Sorry, but when I read "concave" vs "convex" loop, I am immediately terrified that "person" is back with haunting threads.....
All of you know who I meant...... Sorry King_Pong, for the irrelevant reply.... Edited by doraemon - 06/21/2012 at 3:50am |
||
king_pong
Silver Member Joined: 06/29/2010 Location: Minneapolis Status: Offline Points: 889 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Not sure I'm following it when people use these terms. I was wondering of someone could point me in the right direction. I notice at least two distinct main looping styles of the CNT. The first is an aggressive loop-drive, in which the hand starts low and ends very high with the blade vertical and very high above the head. The crux of the elbow is often right in front of the nose on the follow-through (think Ma Long, Yan An, Fan Bo). I consider this one to be "concave". Then there is a loop which also starts low, but when the stroke terminates the blade ends more across the head horizontally, with the elbow pointed outwards, almost like they're throwing the ball rather than hitting it (think Wang Hao, Zhang Jike, Chen Qi). Maybe this is more of a "pure-loop". I consider this one to be the "convex". Two distinct styles (Ma Long vs. Chen Qi): It seems these two distinctive styles may have developed from two of the sports' and two China's most heralded players -- Kong Linghui and Liu Guoliang. When I watch them in their video series -- "Excellent World Champions Teach You How To Play Table Tennis (16DVDs)", I noticed how different the two players' forehands were. Kong Linghui "whipping hand/wrist loop"-- Liu Guoliang "driving loop"-- I understand that Guoliang was more of a hitter, while Kong was a pure looper, but Guoliang's style (what I believe to be the "Concave-style FH") seems to be emerging as the more dominant top-spinning FH amongst today's CNT shakehanders, with its more open striking of the ball and elliptical path of the recovery arm. Maybe someone could speak to this, explaining this for this for those of us who are a bit newer to the game. Might spare from trying to mimic extinct or outgoing FH technique styles. Thank you. Edited by king_pong - 06/21/2012 at 3:44am |
||
Post Reply | Page <123 |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Forum Home | Go to the Forums | Forum Help | Disclaimer
MyTableTennis.NET is the trading name of Alex Table Tennis Ltd. |