Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET Homepage
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Table Tennis Basics - Like a Boss - by Brett Clark
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Table Tennis Basics - Like a Boss - by Brett Clark

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 14335
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/19/2015 at 3:48pm
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

Yes, it's harder because the ball moves, but the problem here isn't people generally trying to do the right thing and sometimes failing. Their form often needs help even on relatively simple points.



Nobody is even coming close to disputing that people sometimes need help-- well, except perhaps for your contention that coaching is usually ineffective (to the extent it is even possible to discern what you are bloviating about). 

So yes, people need whatever help they can get to feel the right mechanics of the stroke, which is the whole point of this video.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
AgentHEX View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/14/2004
Location: Yo Mama
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentHEX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/19/2015 at 4:16pm
> What isn't covered is what do both strokes, fixed elbow and power loop, have in common?

There's plainly a tradeoff between getting everything in line for max effect and the time it takes to do so, so the pertinent question is how that tradeoff gets made. A lot if not most players seem to make the choice in game poorly if they're anywhere near making that tradeoff at all. IOW they're not even trying to the right thing so it's no mystery when they remain in place for long spells.

Also to clarify these sort of flaws in pedagogical technique aren't unique to this case or TT specifically, nor that it's particularly pernicious here in any way. It's just something for general discussion given it's here, and the fact anyone takes it personally usually means some point hits home. People for example get taught/study languages for years yet can't carry out a basic conversation.
Back to Top
Brett Clarke View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/05/2014
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brett Clarke Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/19/2015 at 6:22pm
Originally posted by pnachtwey pnachtwey wrote:

Jeez, I think it is obvious that the first video is for the basics and fast recovery.  The second video obviously violates the fixed elbow principle laid out in the first video but the purpose of the second video is more about looping with power rather than just getting the ball back and being able to be back in position.  Then there are all the strokes in between for all the situations in between those shown in the two videos.

What isn't covered is what do both strokes, fixed elbow and power loop, have in common? 

Hey pnachtwey. Correct, the first video is for coaches to help new players from day one. It is about stoke efficiency and recovery. It is to stop players from messing up big time. If someone doesn't believe there is value in the technique, I would be excited and grateful if they made a video showing me a better alternative as I'm willing to learn and I don't want to teach students/coaches rubbish. Coaching is a big part of my life. Just saying you don't agree doesn't help coaches to teach backhand and forehand to players from day 1 forward. A short 2 minute video with specific and practical instruction would help everyone a lot.

The second video is about bringing in extra power and speed by using wrist and forearm close to optimally. There is some upper arm used on power shot (I mentioned it in the basics video when talking about Henzell), but it's still mostly wrist and forearm. 

I believe there are a few ways to approach technique, but not as many as people may believe. The range is very tight. Most people make significant errors which are miles outside of this range.

Cheers, Brett











Table Tennis Videos by Brett Clarke
Back to Top
pnachtwey View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/09/2010
Location: Vancouver, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 2035
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pnachtwey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/19/2015 at 7:08pm
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

> What isn't covered is what do both strokes, fixed elbow and power loop, have in common?

There's plainly a tradeoff between getting everything in line for max effect and the time it takes to do so, so the pertinent question is how that tradeoff gets made.
That is a general statement.  What is common to both types of strokes? I think one of your earlier posts mentioned keeping the paddle in a plane or something to that effect.  I took this to mean that the plane of the paddle or normal vector was pointing in the same direction during the time of possible impact.  This makes the timing of the impact less important.  If the orientation of the paddle is changing during impact then the ball will go in different directions depending on when the ball hits the paddle.

If you had a robot that could move like a human how would you program it?  I am not talking about the details and nitty gritty of programming but what things would be important to making optimal shots?  What are the trade offs between doing a straight arm loop and one where the elbow is close to a fixed point?  What goal would be common for both shots?  I think keeping paddle orientation constant during possible impact time is important.  It is relatively easy to program a robot so that the end effector's orientation, paddle orientation, remains constant during a stroke so the wobbly paddle effect is negated no matter what the stroke is.  This is a little harder for people to do this but I think the important thing is the goal.


   
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/19/2015 at 7:25pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Originally posted by BRS BRS wrote:


What if they had to throw a rock so it hit another rock that was thrown at them from 12-15 feet away?  How would their form be then?


While they are moving.

... with typically no more than one seconds "notice" and also with the intent of aiming the ball to a specific location.  Further, the particular stroke that they execute can very well need to be determined in a time interval much less than a second.

My general opinion/experience is that table tennis is frequently taught backwards with an emphasis on strokes first and footwork later.  It should, IMO, be the other way around.  If the footwork is good implementing a good stroke is much easier.
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
ttTurkey View Drop Down
Silver Member
Silver Member


Joined: 09/07/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 516
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote ttTurkey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/19/2015 at 7:33pm
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

> What isn't covered is what do both strokes, fixed elbow and power loop, have in common?

There's plainly a tradeoff between getting everything in line for max effect and the time it takes to do so, so the pertinent question is how that tradeoff gets made. A lot if not most players seem to make the choice in game poorly if they're anywhere near making that tradeoff at all. IOW they're not even trying to the right thing so it's no mystery when they remain in place for long spells.

Also to clarify these sort of flaws in pedagogical technique aren't unique to this case or TT specifically, nor that it's particularly pernicious here in any way. It's just something for general discussion given it's here, and the fact anyone takes it personally usually means some point hits home. People for example get taught/study languages for years yet can't carry out a basic conversation.


I have a suggestion: create a sig that says "everyone else is stupid and always wrong". That way you don't have to repeat that assertion in a myriad of different ways in all your posts. With that out of the way and taken care of by your sig, you can focus on posting constructively (if that is your aim).

"A lot if not most players seem to make the choice in game poorly...". Poorly compared to who? Top professionals? Well, duh. Of course amateurs do a lot of things poorly compared to top professionals, who got there by taking up the sport at a young age, practising 5-6 hours per day under the eye of a good coach and happened to be born in a strong table tennis country. Show me any sport where amateurs nail the basics and play like the pros.

If I remember correctly, on another thread you admitted that you have played occasionally for about a year. I think you suffer from thinking that expertise in one field translates to expertise in completely unrelated fields, and that all problems can best be solved using science aka engineers' syndrome.

As for your criticism of Brett, he is offering very helpful (IMO) advice for the average amateur (you know those guys that either started playing later in life, didn't train many hours per day, did not receive expert coaching for years and weren't born in a strong TT country i.e. most of the playing population!!!)  in his videos. And best of all, he is graciously offering his expertise for FREE! If you don't like the price, then don't buy.







Back to Top
BRS View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member


Joined: 05/08/2013
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BRS Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/19/2015 at 9:38pm
Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:

 My general opinion/experience is that table tennis is frequently taught backwards with an emphasis on strokes first and footwork later.  It should, IMO, be the other way around.  If the footwork is good implementing a good stroke is much easier.

So true, and so, so sad.  If the footwork is bad implementing a good stroke is just about impossible.  

The sad part is that learning a proper stroke is easy.  Anybody can shadow practice a perfect stroke like throwing rocks in a pond.  They just never get to use it because learning proper footwork as an adult isn't easy at all.  
Back to Top
pnachtwey View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/09/2010
Location: Vancouver, WA
Status: Offline
Points: 2035
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pnachtwey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/20/2015 at 12:50am
My coach 2500-2600 teaches the same fixed elbow technique.  It isn't just for beginners.  It is for anybody playing close to the table where minimizing reaction and recovery time and efficiency is a must. Watch top rated female players.  For playing close to the table, the fixed elbow meets the criteria like like efficiency, accuracy, speed, and consistency.  True engineers like these attributes.

Originally posted by ttTurkey ttTurkey wrote:

I think you suffer from thinking that expertise in one field translates to expertise in completely unrelated fields, and that all problems can best be solved using science aka engineers' syndrome.

We should take this up on an different thread where you can explain the engineer's syndrome.






Back to Top
Brett Clarke View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/05/2014
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brett Clarke Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/20/2015 at 9:29am
Originally posted by pnachtwey pnachtwey wrote:

My coach 2500-2600 teaches the same fixed elbow technique.  It isn't just for beginners.  It is for anybody playing close to the table where minimizing reaction and recovery time and efficiency is a must. Watch top rated female players.  For playing close to the table, the fixed elbow meets the criteria like like efficiency, accuracy, speed, and consistency.  True engineers like these attributes.

Yes pnachtwey, The technique is relevant for top players as well, especially in close to the table play where efficiency is necessary as the ball comes back quickly. Efficiency is efficiency, no matter the level of play. 

I targeted the content more to beginners, club players and coaches as these people are the majority. I really enjoy coaching at lower levels, especially beginners. 

Cheers, Brett 


Table Tennis Videos by Brett Clarke
Back to Top
AgentHEX View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/14/2004
Location: Yo Mama
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentHEX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/20/2015 at 2:11pm
Originally posted by pnachtwey pnachtwey wrote:

Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

> What isn't covered is what do both strokes, fixed elbow and power loop, have in common?

There's plainly a tradeoff between getting everything in line for max effect and the time it takes to do so, so the pertinent question is how that tradeoff gets made.
That is a general statement.  What is common to both types of strokes? I think one of your earlier posts mentioned keeping the paddle in a plane or something to that effect.  I took this to mean that the plane of the paddle or normal vector was pointing in the same direction during the time of possible impact.  This makes the timing of the impact less important.  If the orientation of the paddle is changing during impact then the ball will go in different directions depending on when the ball hits the paddle.


The simple answer is that there's also a compromise between flexibility and max mechanical leverage. Keeping things in a "ready" position in lieu of better informed decision isn't a bad idea.

The more complicated first principles derivation of this follows.

Quote
If you had a robot that could move like a human how would you program it?  I am not talking about the details and nitty gritty of programming but what things would be important to making optimal shots?  What are the trade offs between doing a straight arm loop and one where the elbow is close to a fixed point?  What goal would be common for both shots?  I think keeping paddle orientation constant during possible impact time is important.  It is relatively easy to program a robot so that the end effector's orientation, paddle orientation, remains constant during a stroke so the wobbly paddle effect is negated no matter what the stroke is.  This is a little harder for people to do this but I think the important thing is the goal.



Yes, it's basically an algorithmic optimization problem. From a high level perspective doing the calculation for all possible interceptions for all possible flight paths is onerous or at least time consuming, so it's best to reduce the solution space by setting a point where the path intersects a given distance distance from the table as a hard deadline and schedule everything both backwards from there and towards that point of interception.

Looking at this simplified version, the main goal is always going to be preparing as well as can be at a given point in time and thus the limitation is always going to be acquiring enough data soon as possible. Again for simplification if we take last ball leaving your racket as time zero, there might be a span where it's difficult to see what the opponent is fixing to do and react accordingly (if for example we assume the opponent has no anticipation and reacts only after your shot), so it's necessary to rely on heuristics entirely to start doing *something* that's better than nothing. In its most basic form might be "return to neutral position", to "best position for cross-court return", up through something based on the specifics of the point/game against historic statistics of specific opponent.

Once more externally visible info (eg. opponent moves toward right of ball and starts lowering racket) is available whatever previous course of action can be preempted.

Thus far we've only touched on fwd scheduling. Calculating backwards from anticipated time of impact, some solutions (say, powerloop) are necessarily precluded. There are necessary dependencies in the algorithmic chain of events such as backswing before stroke, the end of which is limited by the ball's ETA. This is where the decision for arm angle or whatever comes into play. There's always going to some compromise in the heuristics between a more generic position and one more optimized/risky for an expected shot that may never come. Generally as time passes, more info becomes available to increase certainty of nature of the interception, and less time is available for scheduling more lengthy movements. For example, if you play an offensive FH down the line on the right side, it's reasonable to expect a cross-court to the BH. Whether it's best at that point to keep to a safe/flexible arm position, or when to turn the shoulder over to optimize for another attack depends on various specific factors.

Some thing else worth mention is a typical issue I've seen in most players (incl myself) is they react too late to do much, even if they had perfect guidance on what to do from that point fwd. I've heard high level players mention that there's "plenty of time" which is accurate from a perspective where good "anticipation" is the norm; but in any case the framework above contains various concepts like data acq, scheduling, decisions, etc  which when applied to any given situation helps explain what that word means.

Back to Top
AgentHEX View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/14/2004
Location: Yo Mama
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentHEX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/20/2015 at 2:19pm
Originally posted by BRS BRS wrote:

Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:

 My general opinion/experience is that table tennis is frequently taught backwards with an emphasis on strokes first and footwork later.  It should, IMO, be the other way around.  If the footwork is good implementing a good stroke is much easier.

So true, and so, so sad.  If the footwork is bad implementing a good stroke is just about impossible.  

The sad part is that learning a proper stroke is easy.  Anybody can shadow practice a perfect stroke like throwing rocks in a pond.  They just never get to use it because learning proper footwork as an adult isn't easy at all.  


More or less the same thing applies to footwork as strokes, even if less attention is paid to it for various reasons.

The overarching problem is that most folks lack the tools to figure out what's going on and thus what's going wrong and thus how to fix it.

Not figuring things out for longer obviously doesn't help much here.
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 14335
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/21/2015 at 12:03am
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

Originally posted by pnachtwey pnachtwey wrote:

Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

> What isn't covered is what do both strokes, fixed elbow and power loop, have in common?

There's plainly a tradeoff between getting everything in line for max effect and the time it takes to do so, so the pertinent question is how that tradeoff gets made.
That is a general statement.  What is common to both types of strokes? I think one of your earlier posts mentioned keeping the paddle in a plane or something to that effect.  I took this to mean that the plane of the paddle or normal vector was pointing in the same direction during the time of possible impact.  This makes the timing of the impact less important.  If the orientation of the paddle is changing during impact then the ball will go in different directions depending on when the ball hits the paddle.


The simple answer is that there's also a compromise between flexibility and max mechanical leverage. Keeping things in a "ready" position in lieu of better informed decision isn't a bad idea.

The more complicated first principles derivation of this follows.

Quote
If you had a robot that could move like a human how would you program it?  I am not talking about the details and nitty gritty of programming but what things would be important to making optimal shots?  What are the trade offs between doing a straight arm loop and one where the elbow is close to a fixed point?  What goal would be common for both shots?  I think keeping paddle orientation constant during possible impact time is important.  It is relatively easy to program a robot so that the end effector's orientation, paddle orientation, remains constant during a stroke so the wobbly paddle effect is negated no matter what the stroke is.  This is a little harder for people to do this but I think the important thing is the goal.



Yes, it's basically an algorithmic optimization problem. From a high level perspective doing the calculation for all possible interceptions for all possible flight paths is onerous or at least time consuming, so it's best to reduce the solution space by setting a point where the path intersects a given distance distance from the table as a hard deadline and schedule everything both backwards from there and towards that point of interception.

Looking at this simplified version, the main goal is always going to be preparing as well as can be at a given point in time and thus the limitation is always going to be acquiring enough data soon as possible. Again for simplification if we take last ball leaving your racket as time zero, there might be a span where it's difficult to see what the opponent is fixing to do and react accordingly (if for example we assume the opponent has no anticipation and reacts only after your shot), so it's necessary to rely on heuristics entirely to start doing *something* that's better than nothing. In its most basic form might be "return to neutral position", to "best position for cross-court return", up through something based on the specifics of the point/game against historic statistics of specific opponent.

Once more externally visible info (eg. opponent moves toward right of ball and starts lowering racket) is available whatever previous course of action can be preempted.

Thus far we've only touched on fwd scheduling. Calculating backwards from anticipated time of impact, some solutions (say, powerloop) are necessarily precluded. There are necessary dependencies in the algorithmic chain of events such as backswing before stroke, the end of which is limited by the ball's ETA. This is where the decision for arm angle or whatever comes into play. There's always going to some compromise in the heuristics between a more generic position and one more optimized/risky for an expected shot that may never come. Generally as time passes, more info becomes available to increase certainty of nature of the interception, and less time is available for scheduling more lengthy movements. For example, if you play an offensive FH down the line on the right side, it's reasonable to expect a cross-court to the BH. Whether it's best at that point to keep to a safe/flexible arm position, or when to turn the shoulder over to optimize for another attack depends on various specific factors.

Some thing else worth mention is a typical issue I've seen in most players (incl myself) is they react too late to do much, even if they had perfect guidance on what to do from that point fwd. I've heard high level players mention that there's "plenty of time" which is accurate from a perspective where good "anticipation" is the norm; but in any case the framework above contains various concepts like data acq, scheduling, decisions, etc  which when applied to any given situation helps explain what that word means.



cute animated GIF
Back to Top
AgentHEX View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/14/2004
Location: Yo Mama
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentHEX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/21/2015 at 12:33am
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

Originally posted by pnachtwey pnachtwey wrote:

Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

> What isn't covered is what do both strokes, fixed elbow and power loop, have in common?

There's plainly a tradeoff between getting everything in line for max effect and the time it takes to do so, so the pertinent question is how that tradeoff gets made.
That is a general statement.  What is common to both types of strokes? I think one of your earlier posts mentioned keeping the paddle in a plane or something to that effect.  I took this to mean that the plane of the paddle or normal vector was pointing in the same direction during the time of possible impact.  This makes the timing of the impact less important.  If the orientation of the paddle is changing during impact then the ball will go in different directions depending on when the ball hits the paddle.


The simple answer is that there's also a compromise between flexibility and max mechanical leverage. Keeping things in a "ready" position in lieu of better informed decision isn't a bad idea.

The more complicated first principles derivation of this follows.

Quote
If you had a robot that could move like a human how would you program it?  I am not talking about the details and nitty gritty of programming but what things would be important to making optimal shots?  What are the trade offs between doing a straight arm loop and one where the elbow is close to a fixed point?  What goal would be common for both shots?  I think keeping paddle orientation constant during possible impact time is important.  It is relatively easy to program a robot so that the end effector's orientation, paddle orientation, remains constant during a stroke so the wobbly paddle effect is negated no matter what the stroke is.  This is a little harder for people to do this but I think the important thing is the goal.



Yes, it's basically an algorithmic optimization problem. From a high level perspective doing the calculation for all possible interceptions for all possible flight paths is onerous or at least time consuming, so it's best to reduce the solution space by setting a point where the path intersects a given distance distance from the table as a hard deadline and schedule everything both backwards from there and towards that point of interception.

Looking at this simplified version, the main goal is always going to be preparing as well as can be at a given point in time and thus the limitation is always going to be acquiring enough data soon as possible. Again for simplification if we take last ball leaving your racket as time zero, there might be a span where it's difficult to see what the opponent is fixing to do and react accordingly (if for example we assume the opponent has no anticipation and reacts only after your shot), so it's necessary to rely on heuristics entirely to start doing *something* that's better than nothing. In its most basic form might be "return to neutral position", to "best position for cross-court return", up through something based on the specifics of the point/game against historic statistics of specific opponent.

Once more externally visible info (eg. opponent moves toward right of ball and starts lowering racket) is available whatever previous course of action can be preempted.

Thus far we've only touched on fwd scheduling. Calculating backwards from anticipated time of impact, some solutions (say, powerloop) are necessarily precluded. There are necessary dependencies in the algorithmic chain of events such as backswing before stroke, the end of which is limited by the ball's ETA. This is where the decision for arm angle or whatever comes into play. There's always going to some compromise in the heuristics between a more generic position and one more optimized/risky for an expected shot that may never come. Generally as time passes, more info becomes available to increase certainty of nature of the interception, and less time is available for scheduling more lengthy movements. For example, if you play an offensive FH down the line on the right side, it's reasonable to expect a cross-court to the BH. Whether it's best at that point to keep to a safe/flexible arm position, or when to turn the shoulder over to optimize for another attack depends on various specific factors.

Some thing else worth mention is a typical issue I've seen in most players (incl myself) is they react too late to do much, even if they had perfect guidance on what to do from that point fwd. I've heard high level players mention that there's "plenty of time" which is accurate from a perspective where good "anticipation" is the norm; but in any case the framework above contains various concepts like data acq, scheduling, decisions, etc  which when applied to any given situation helps explain what that word means.



cute animated GIF


Just in case anyone needs a reminder what trolling looks like.
Back to Top
AgentHEX View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/14/2004
Location: Yo Mama
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentHEX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/21/2015 at 1:15am
That side of the market seems pretty crowded; that's why I'm going with the too complicated to understand end of things.

Srsly tho, imo just people are new doesn't necessarily mean they can only handle simple.




Back to Top
Brett Clarke View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/05/2014
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brett Clarke Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/21/2015 at 3:35am
Originally posted by fatt fatt wrote:

In the last few years I have been an always apprentice coach sharing with the people who call me what I know about the game; I like Brett's work because he tries to explain very complicated ideas like the tt fh with simple words and analogies. I am on the same path. I am thinking about a 10 minutes video about my coaching skills that would resume all I have to say about the game to push a newbie into the arena. Would that video be welcome in this thread? the reason I am asking is that I am recognizing myself into that coaching style of Brett's.

Hey fatt, I would be delighted to see you post content right here. If you can teach me a thing or two about coaching, it would seriously make my day. There is almost no video content on how to coach TT online.

I'm sitting at my computer right now making a 100+ episode series called "learning table tennis" so I may even try to steal an idea or two from you. Looking forward to seeing your stuff, especially if it's portable and practical. Coaches need simple tools to take down to the club to teach players.

Cheers, Brett
Table Tennis Videos by Brett Clarke
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.164 seconds.

Become a Fan on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Web Wiz News
Forum Home | Go to the Forums | Forum Help | Disclaimer

MyTableTennis.NET is the trading name of Alex Table Tennis Ltd.

Copyright ©2003-2024 Alex Table Tennis Ltd. All rights reserved.