What determines speed, spin, and control?

Is this the right way to think about it?

For rubber, theres tackiness and sponge hardness.
The tackier, more spin and less speed
The harder the sponge, more speed, less spin and less control.
How does tackiness effect control?

For blade, theres flex and hardness.
The more flex, more spin and less speed
The harder the blade, more speed and less spin?
How does flex and hardness effect control?

zeio wrote: Refer to this post.  Most of the concepts transfer to blade.

I hadn't seen that one before, but it is quite interesting.

It seems to me there is always a human element in table tennis.  Because there are limits to how fine motor control can be, if a rubber is too fast no matter how hard you swing, then difference between sending the ball long or in the net requires an almost minuscule change in muscle effort.  That would be bad.  (This is also a bit of an over-simplification, but the idea is there).

It seems like an ideal rubber would be one that can generate plenty of spin but which also has the maximal "dynamic range" for lack of a better term.  If you could get a rubber that basically slows the ball down when you apply very little force, but which provides a maximum impulse to the ball when you swing really hard.  In other words, the player uses a larger portion of his own muscle strength to vary the amount of impulse he wants to impart onto the ball, but also one where the top end is very very fast. 

How fast at the top end?  How slow at the low end?  That may depend a lot on each player.  Oddly enough, as I get older, I prefer slightly faster equipment because I can generate more power while maintaining my balance after the shot, and I have played so many years that I can manage to control things when I am not trying to hit hard.  

I only know how those poperties come from empirically trying stuff (not so much anymore, since I kind of know what I like now). 

But I have no idea what the properties are of a rubber that actually give us those properties.  SO Zeio's post is very interesting to me.

Baal wrote: zeio wrote: Refer to this post.  Most of the concepts transfer to blade. I hadn't seen that one before, but it is quite interesting. It seems to me there is always a human element in table tennis.  Because there are limits to how fine motor control can be, if a rubber is too fast no matter how hard you swing, then difference between sending the ball long or in the net requires an almost minuscule change in muscle effort.  That would be bad.  (This is also a bit of an over-simplification, but the idea is there). It seems like an ideal rubber would be one that can generate plenty of spin but which also has the maximal "dynamic range" for lack of a better term.  If you could get a rubber that basically slows the ball down when you apply very little force, but which provides a maximum impulse to the ball when you swing really hard.  In other words, the player uses a larger portion of his own muscle strength to vary the amount of impulse he wants to impart onto the ball, but also one where the top end is very very fast.  How fast at the top end?  How slow at the low end?  That may depend a lot on each player.  Oddly enough, as I get older, I prefer slightly faster equipment because I can generate more power while maintaining my balance after the shot, and I have played so many years that I can manage to control things when I am not trying to hit hard.   I only know how those poperties come from empirically trying stuff (not so much anymore, since I kind of know what I like now).  But I have no idea what the properties are of a rubber that actually give us those properties.  SO Zeio's post is very interesting to me.

In my opinion, that would be a very sticky top sheet with a soft sponge 2.1

My DHS Hurricane 8 plays like that.

elsewhere zeio wrote: The acquired data indicate that those topsheets whose thickness (without accounting for pip height) is below .6mm fare better in energy efficiency and shot direction. Those within the range of .2-.6mm, or even .3-.6mm are preferred in consideration of rubber strength.

I don't really buy into most people's idea of control, and certainly not this longer contact (dwell) time implying greater control idea.  I sit in the camp of 1) too quick probably will be harder to control into a short length shot for most people, 2) too spinny will be harder for some people to control the direction of the shot, 3) too inconsistent based on contact position (eg distance sweet spot, on pip/off pip, irregularities in the composition etc) the more likely a player will not understand the results of a stroke (and consider as low control).

Baal, when it comes to control, I can't help but feel reminded of a certain person whose motto goes along the line "blades don't have power unless you burn them."

Edited by zeio - 05/06/2016 at 10:01am

zeio wrote: Baal, when it comes to control, I can't help but feel reminded of a certain person whose motto goes along the line "blades don't have power unless you burn them."

Baal runs away screaming!

Yes, zeio, but what is the best rubber to use with "the new ball"?  /s

Control is absolutely style- and player-dependent. 

zeio wrote: Nooooooo...not another topic about what is the best! As the saying goes, "there is no best, only better.

The betterer is the one you feel is the best for your own game. It changes from player to player

wturber wrote: zeio wrote: Nooooooo...not another topic about what is the best! As the saying goes, "there is no best, only better. OK.  Which is the most more betterer?

assam wrote: The betterer is the one you feel is the best for your own game. It changes from player to player

True, but IMO this does not go far enough.  The betterer is not only the one you deem best for your game, it is, or rather should be, one that is betterer for the sport of table tennis in general.