Print Page | Close Window

3 Tips for Bachhand Topspin against Backspin

Printed From: Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET
Category: Coaching & Tips
Forum Name: Video of me playing
Forum Description: Post your playing videos and get tips and suggestions from other members.
Moderator: yogi_bear
Assistant Moderators: APW46
URL: http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=85175
Printed Date: 08/22/2019 at 6:18pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: 3 Tips for Bachhand Topspin against Backspin
Posted By: nicholasy
Subject: 3 Tips for Bachhand Topspin against Backspin
Date Posted: 02/08/2019 at 6:17pm
3 Tips for Backhand Topspin against Backspin by Chinese Coach
 
https://youtu.be/Q69AyZZy0q4" rel="nofollow - https://youtu.be/Q69AyZZy0q4



Replies:
Posted By: BH-Man
Date Posted: 02/09/2019 at 1:34pm
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?

-------------
Korea Foreign Table Tennis Club
Search for us on Facebook: koreaforeignttc


Posted By: nicholasy
Date Posted: 02/10/2019 at 3:19am
Originally posted by BH-Man 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?
 
Heavy Spin BH. Yes. I learned it from China & Korea both.
Basiccally, The Method for Heavy Spin BH is almost same between China & Korea.
 
I think, As you mentioned, KOR & CHN coaches are prefer to train the fast one first.
 
 


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/10/2019 at 3:29am
I saw a video from a German youtuber that works for xiom. He had one of the junior players of the Korean national team in his office and played a bit with him. The junior player gave him some tips for the backhand. What he showed was a complete different technique. He showed a technique where you do a more hitting topspin and then a motion where you push your racket down, to bring the ball down. http://youtu.be/Wu0JxGEzYoM" rel="nofollow - http://youtu.be/Wu0JxGEzYoM
Starts at 4:42


Posted By: Lula
Date Posted: 02/10/2019 at 4:07am
I think it looks pretty good. is it suppose to be a backhand kill? 
If it is suppose to be just a soft opening shot i think you could accelerate alot more, so you brush the ball more so you get some spin. maybe you can loop a bit more upward aswell. Accelerating and a bit more upward will give you a higher arc so the shot will be somewhat more safe. More spin will also make it harder for your opponent. 

Now i feel the shot is somewhat flat and the arc is low so you miss some, but i feel that she wants you to play pretty hard against backspin and that is why the shot is somewhat flat. But i am not sure. 


Posted By: nicholasy
Date Posted: 02/10/2019 at 4:22am
Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

I saw a video from a German youtuber that works for xiom. He had one of the junior players of the Korean national team in his office and played a bit with him. The junior player gave him some tips for the backhand. What he showed was a complete different technique. He showed a technique where you do a more hitting topspin and then a motion where you push your racket down, to bring the ball down. http://youtu.be/Wu0JxGEzYoM" rel="nofollow - http://youtu.be/Wu0JxGEzYoM
Starts at 4:42
Thanks for your sharing. I've checked it, but I think that His BH and My BH is a little bit different.
It could be different for BH by Coach in my opinion.


Posted By: stiltt
Date Posted: 02/11/2019 at 12:41am
@ttgold when you write "...and then a motion where you push your racket down,..." do you mean something like this?
http://mytabletennis.net/forum/liam-pitchford-bh-loop-technique_topic78062_post965049.html" rel="nofollow - http://mytabletennis.net/forum/liam-pitchford-bh-loop-technique_topic78062_post965049.html


-------------
forum_posts.asp?TID=82031" rel="nofollow - sales - forum_posts.asp?TID=19315" rel="nofollow - feedback
HTTP://ROSSLEIDY.COM" rel="nofollow - Treat Yourself


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/11/2019 at 6:32am
nah. The video I linked shows exactly what I mean. It's like a circular motion. If you look at fzd's backhand you'll see that he also presses down on the ball. Kindo F like the motion of a punch block. It's weird for me to talk about backhand technique, since there are so many backhand techniques out there. Liam uses a lot of natural arm/ wrist, while someone like fan uses this pressing motion. Lin uses a circular motion as well, but without the pressing down part. His circular motion is even bigger. I think the newest technique is going into the direction of fan's technique. 
Yet if we look at the best backhands in this century, then we'll see that there are different than the ones today. Zjk uses a backhand technique that I'd consider the most basic backhand technique. One that everyone could agree is textbook. Same with wang hao. Ovtcharov has a very different technique from everyone else, but I think he is a very unique player in that sense and shouldn't be included when talking about the backhand, since his game is oddly build. 

I think right now there are two major backhand techniques used.
1. The natural swinging technique. A technique where you just swing your arm into it. 
Examples:
-best example is liam (his backhand is so natural, his wrist just follows through his swing) 
- ma long ( also swings his arm in)
- harimoto ( his wrist doesn't follow through from the momentum of the forearm though, he adds a lot of force actively)

2. The pressing backhand/ ripping backhand. Major difference to the 1. Is that the arm doesn't swing that naturally. The pressing and ripping backhand can look very different in the examples I'm going to mention, but at the core they are the same.
Example:
- fzd ( uses this pressing down motion)
- Simon gauzy ( doesn't press down, but uses his wrist in a similar way. He presses forward into the ball strongly)
-Hugo calderano ( falls into the ripping category. He does a strong swing with a wrist movement of that of Simon)
- Lin Gaoliang ( uses a very circular motion ripping with his arm mostly) 

If you want to see their backhands in action and check what I mean, there are a few videos that showcase them.

Simon gauzy ( watch the blade review on table tennis daily) 
Lin Gaoliang ( watch butterfly Japan technique videos)
Fan Zhendong ( backhand slow motion video or the video I linked before)
Hugo ( also table tennis daily blade review)
Ma long and fzd comparison ( World Cup training video on ittf)
Harimoto ( training videos)


Posted By: FruitLoop
Date Posted: 02/11/2019 at 8:45am
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.


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/11/2019 at 8:50am
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.



Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/11/2019 at 10:31am
Originally posted by Tt Gold 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.

Can you please show your backhand?

I honestly think you are complicating a topic unnecessarily.   Everyone has a different backhand but they all have the same circular and speed production principles as the forehand.   The minor adjustments are to provide a different quality of ball either with more speed or spin depending on the incoming speed or spin.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: nicholasy
Date Posted: 02/11/2019 at 10:46am
Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Tt Gold 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.

Can you please show your backhand?

I honestly think you are complicating a topic unnecessarily.   Everyone has a different backhand but they all have the same circular and speed production principles as the forehand.   The minor adjustments are to provide a different quality of ball either with more speed or spin depending on the incoming speed or spin.

Cool! 


Posted By: stiltt
Date Posted: 02/11/2019 at 10:52am
@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 http://mytabletennis.net/forum/my-table-tennis-life_topic83586_post1041639.html" rel="nofollow - few weeks ago  where I kind of like his BH a lot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB1UvdT0Ix0" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB1UvdT0Ix0



-------------
forum_posts.asp?TID=82031" rel="nofollow - sales - forum_posts.asp?TID=19315" rel="nofollow - feedback
HTTP://ROSSLEIDY.COM" rel="nofollow - Treat Yourself


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/11/2019 at 11:31am
Originally posted by fatt 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 http://mytabletennis.net/forum/my-table-tennis-life_topic83586_post1041639.html" rel="nofollow - few weeks ago  where I kind of like his BH a lot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB1UvdT0Ix0" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB1UvdT0Ix0


When I was looping backspin at USATY 1700,  one of my coaches who has never been to Korea, said that there as a difference between the upward lifting motion and the forward drive motion and encouraged me to enf the  upward circular portion of my stroke when I made contact with the balland to finish more forward.. All he is asking the TTR hunter to do is to add more forward motion into the contact once the backspin has been handled.  He is looking for a different quality of ball.  When a coach is trying to get more out of your technique,  that is what a coach does.  Making it sound like a new backhand is just going to confuse people.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/11/2019 at 11:53am
Ttgold has a solid backhand. 

Yes there are distinctions in backhand technique but everyone is just trying to do the same thing - get a higher quality ball.  The actual technique you end up with is often an accident of evolution.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/11/2019 at 12:32pm
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. 


Posted By: stiltt
Date Posted: 02/11/2019 at 2:00pm
Originally posted by Tt Gold 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 Smile. It's also good to analyse deep and detailed, it's just fun and we can't help it Big smile. Both are necessarily interlaced to keep the ball spinning with sense; and direction Tongue. Have all a great week!

-------------
forum_posts.asp?TID=82031" rel="nofollow - sales - forum_posts.asp?TID=19315" rel="nofollow - feedback
HTTP://ROSSLEIDY.COM" rel="nofollow - Treat Yourself


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/11/2019 at 2:23pm
Originally posted by fatt 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 http://mytabletennis.net/forum/my-table-tennis-life_topic83586_post1041639.html" rel="nofollow - few weeks ago  where I kind of like his BH a lot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB1UvdT0Ix0" rel="nofollow - 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.


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/11/2019 at 3:39pm
Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

Originally posted by fatt 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 http://mytabletennis.net/forum/my-table-tennis-life_topic83586_post1041639.html" rel="nofollow - few weeks ago  where I kind of like his BH a lot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB1UvdT0Ix0" rel="nofollow - 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. 


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: blahness
Date Posted: 02/11/2019 at 5:52pm
I think Fan Zhendong has a very different stroke compared to the rest of the pros...he pronates/supinates his arms actively rather than it being an afterthought inclusion, that along with extremely good biomechanics on the lower body makes him both extremely speedy and powerful. It's also the exact same movement responsible for much of the power in badminton and tennis. I think the pronation/supination makes the stroke less stable due to having to time precise racket angle changes. The mechanism is especially clear when he has to hit in a cramped position.

-------------
-------
Tacky rubber lover :)

Stiga Clipper CR

FH: Hurricane 8
BH: Hurricane 3-50


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/11/2019 at 5:53pm
Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

Originally posted by fatt 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 http://mytabletennis.net/forum/my-table-tennis-life_topic83586_post1041639.html" rel="nofollow - few weeks ago  where I kind of like his BH a lot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB1UvdT0Ix0" rel="nofollow - 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.


Posted By: zeio
Date Posted: 02/12/2019 at 4:33am
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 https://youtu.be/4e69liXrgAo?t=346" rel="nofollow - 5:46 , he goes over the swing trajectory and how many grass-root coaches teach it wrong. At https://youtu.be/4e69liXrgAo?t=433" rel="nofollow - 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.



-------------
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


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/12/2019 at 9:03am
Originally posted by zeio 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 https://youtu.be/4e69liXrgAo?t=346" rel="nofollow - 5:46 , he goes over the swing trajectory and how many grass-root coaches teach it wrong. At https://youtu.be/4e69liXrgAo?t=433" rel="nofollow - 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.


It's not new - and the way I have always understood is a swing trajectory adjustment to trap topspin.  I don't understand it so much as punching down but spinning over the ball forward to bring the ball down.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/12/2019 at 9:21am
The kill shot for that stroke is to hit the left side of the ball and  turn the wrist/forearm over.  IT's something you can experiment with but I wouldn't call it someone's regular backhand.

-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: Slowhand
Date Posted: 02/12/2019 at 3:14pm
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.


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/12/2019 at 3:50pm
Originally posted by Slowhand 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.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: Slowhand
Date Posted: 02/12/2019 at 4:32pm
Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Slowhand 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. 


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/12/2019 at 5:09pm
Originally posted by Slowhand Slowhand wrote:

Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Slowhand 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.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: Slowhand
Date Posted: 02/12/2019 at 5:42pm
Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Slowhand Slowhand wrote:

Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Slowhand 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.

I wasn't aware of giving any advice but if I do I think I'll put it on a website called Stupid Table Tennis. In the meantime, I'm sure you can find videos on deceptive serves, snakes, etc., to see how follow through doesn't effect spin.


Posted By: stiltt
Date Posted: 02/12/2019 at 5:58pm
I have 2 questions:

Some people think that the ball travels in contact over the rubber, they mean that the point of contact is in fact a segment, the ball touches the rubber 1st in point A , stays in contact with the rubber and leaves the rubber from point B: is that AB segment real?

If yes, then could that AB segment be drawn differently in function of the follow through because what the arm does before contact is influenced by what we want the follow through to be?

if yes again, we'd get a different contact depending the follow through we choose.

Now if we answer no to the 1st question, it is harder  to consider the design of the follow through relevant in the overall stroke design.



-------------
forum_posts.asp?TID=82031" rel="nofollow - sales - forum_posts.asp?TID=19315" rel="nofollow - feedback
HTTP://ROSSLEIDY.COM" rel="nofollow - Treat Yourself


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/12/2019 at 5:59pm
the way I think about it is a mix of both of your conceptions. No, the follow through itself doesn't directly effect the spin on the ball. But yes it does effect the spin on the ball. What does that mean? 
The thing that effects the ball is the stuff that happens on contact. For example the arm speed that you generate leading up to the contact. 
Example: let's say you didn't accelerate before the contact and after the contact you accelerate. That won't change the speed of the ball, cause it happens afterwards.

But the things that happen after the contact effect the ball, just not on a physical level. Hard to word it for me. It is more the physiological aspect of it that in the end effects the things that happen before and on contact. What does that mean?
Example: of course pressing down after the backhand topspin won't bring the ball down on the table. I can't hit the ball and then drag my arm to the left to magically change the direction of the ball. But the important question is "what does this pressing down concept do to my way of acting?" If I think about pressing down afterwards, I'll subconsciously do the stroke differently ( different acceleration, racket angle/position on contact)



Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/12/2019 at 9:23pm
Originally posted by fatt fatt wrote:

I have 2 questions:

Some people think that the ball travels in contact over the rubber, they mean that the point of contact is in fact a segment, the ball touches the rubber 1st in point A , stays in contact with the rubber and leaves the rubber from point B: is that AB segment real?

If yes, then could that AB segment be drawn differently in function of the follow through because what the arm does before contact is influenced by what we want the follow through to be?

if yes again, we'd get a different contact depending the follow through we choose.

Now if we answer no to the 1st question, it is harder  to consider the design of the follow through relevant in the overall stroke design.


Exactly.  Which is why I said good physics, bad table tennis.  What happens before and after both affect how the ball is contacted.  It affects how the racket is moving (speed and direction) at the point of contact.  I remember when someone said it didn't, I tried to build my table tennis around the idea.  But as I got better, I realized how stupid it was as a naive statement.  IT's one thing to swing, and then do all kinds of nonsense after like people do on serves where they serve then do all kinds of rubbish AFTER the serve is completed (which is not the follow through).  But the racket trajectory and speed is determined by a lot of things including the size of the follow through, and the trajectory and speed are practically unique for a particular way of approaching the ball.  Of course, in theory, all that matter is what happens at the ball.  But can you gain speed and decelerate  and get the same racket trajectory that creates a specific type of spin and speed vector with a different swing?  Yes if you think it is a physics problem, like many low level TT players do.  But not if you try it and realize that the quality of the follow through in some ways affects the quality of the swing.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/12/2019 at 9:36pm
Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

the way I think about it is a mix of both of your conceptions. No, the follow through itself doesn't directly effect the spin on the ball.

Good physics.

Quote But yes it does effect the spin on the ball. What does that mean? 
The thing that effects the ball is the stuff that happens on contact. For example the arm speed that you generate leading up to the contact. 
Example: let's say you didn't accelerate before the contact and after the contact you accelerate. That won't change the speed of the ball, cause it happens afterwards.

But the things that happen after the contact effect the ball, just not on a physical level. Hard to word it for me. It is more the physiological aspect of it that in the end effects the things that happen before and on contact. What does that mean?
Example: of course pressing down after the backhand topspin won't bring the ball down on the table. I can't hit the ball and then drag my arm to the left to magically change the direction of the ball. But the important question is "what does this pressing down concept do to my way of acting?" If I think about pressing down afterwards, I'll subconsciously do the stroke differently ( different acceleration, racket angle/position on contact)


This is mostly good table tennis.  Think of the way you swing your racket as a path.  The follow through of a fast swing is part of the path.  There is a speed of the swing and there is a direction.  There is a contact point on the ball. What the stupid table tennis physicists want you to believe is that how you swing at the ball to end at a certain point  doesn't produce a unique contact point and turning effect on the ball.  They want you to believe that there are other ways of creating the same speed and turning effect just by focusing on what happens at the ball, and not what happens before and after.

I am sorry, this is sheer stupidity.  It also cannot help anyone build a good table tennis stroke.  I know because when I first heard it, I thought it was smart.  And I tried to shorten my stroke to take advantage.  And I learned pretty quickly why the Chinese phrase for loop is something that means "pull past" or so I hear.  The follow through affects the swing speed and plane and therefore affects how the ball is contacted. 

Immediately I grabbed this concept of swing path, my table tennis became better.  I started looking for swing paths to handle various spins etc.  I started to understand what my swing path meant in terms of the effect on the ball.  In reality, most people just copy good players. I unfortunately started at an older age and like to give language to my actions so I had to come to my own conclusions.  And I have never found a really good player who doesn't think how they finish the stroke affects what happens to the ball.  The people who parrot the "all that matters is the contact" are usually the table tennis engineers/physicists, who are usually never more than USATT 1500.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: Slowhand
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 12:24am
Originally posted by fatt fatt wrote:

I have 2 questions:

Some people think that the ball travels in contact over the rubber, they mean that the point of contact is in fact a segment, the ball touches the rubber 1st in point A , stays in contact with the rubber and leaves the rubber from point B: is that AB segment real?

If yes, then could that AB segment be drawn differently in function of the follow through because what the arm does before contact is influenced by what we want the follow through to be?

if yes again, we'd get a different contact depending the follow through we choose.

Now if we answer no to the 1st question, it is harder  to consider the design of the follow through relevant in the overall stroke design.


Your AB line segment is real but short. Contact time between ball and rubber is only a few milliseconds, not enough time for the ball to travel on the rubber more than a small fraction of its own diameter. Even so it's meaningful, not because the ball moves on the rubber but because the forces applied to the ball change depending on the relative positions of A and B, which in turn depend on the swing trajectory during the few milliseconds of contact.

The early part of follow through -- immediately after contact -- depends on swing trajectory during contact because you can't change trajectory instantaneously. But eventually you can change it, often fast enough to be deceptive, and so the rest of the follow through doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what the ball is doing. Deception may be the most typical reason to modify a natural follow through, but there's also faster recovery, less stress on shoulder or elbow, etc.


Posted By: Slowhand
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 12:41am
Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

the way I think about it is a mix of both of your conceptions. No, the follow through itself doesn't directly effect the spin on the ball. But yes it does effect the spin on the ball. What does that mean? 
The thing that effects the ball is the stuff that happens on contact. For example the arm speed that you generate leading up to the contact. 
Example: let's say you didn't accelerate before the contact and after the contact you accelerate. That won't change the speed of the ball, cause it happens afterwards.

But the things that happen after the contact effect the ball, just not on a physical level. Hard to word it for me. It is more the physiological aspect of it that in the end effects the things that happen before and on contact. What does that mean?
Example: of course pressing down after the backhand topspin won't bring the ball down on the table. I can't hit the ball and then drag my arm to the left to magically change the direction of the ball. But the important question is "what does this pressing down concept do to my way of acting?" If I think about pressing down afterwards, I'll subconsciously do the stroke differently ( different acceleration, racket angle/position on contact)

This makes sense to me. Your internal idea of your stroke -- what it looks like, what kind of contact is being made, why it does what it does to the ball, etc. -- is connected to what you actually do. Even if your idea and what you actually do aren't the same thing. If it works it works. But I think there's also a real advantage to knowing what's actually happening, especially when it comes to improving shot mechanics.


Posted By: stiltt
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 1:16am
Those mysterious mechanics are ping pong ghosts shushing around the stroke, they rest at peace once what we perceive, want and execute consistently finally merge into quality play.






-------------
forum_posts.asp?TID=82031" rel="nofollow - sales - forum_posts.asp?TID=19315" rel="nofollow - feedback
HTTP://ROSSLEIDY.COM" rel="nofollow - Treat Yourself


Posted By: blahness
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 2:53am
My view is that the ball only feels an effective force broken into normal and tangential components, however in terms of biomechanics when we are combining and coordinating our movements to achieve the highest contact force and speed, it's extremely hard to dissect the sources of force applied if we just look at the contact alone. However because various parts along the biomechanical chain of power accelerate and decelerate at different times to achieve the whip effect, by looking at the backswing and followthrough we are able to know which links in the chain are present or missing. If we change our backswing or followthrough we are essentially tweaking the biomechanical chain to achieve what we want to do for e.g. if you think of closing the bat angle after contact, what you're actually doing is activating arm pronation and/or supination to increase power transferred to the ball. If you change to a thinner contact you increase the tangential component and thus increasing spin. If you think of doing follow through to the right for BH you activate waist rotation, but if you do it too much then your applied force goes too much to the side rather than forward which causes a loss in power, so there has to be a balance. If you don't accelerate sequentially then you lose the whip effect, thus reducing your power. 

-------------
-------
Tacky rubber lover :)

Stiga Clipper CR

FH: Hurricane 8
BH: Hurricane 3-50


Posted By: blahness
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 3:15am
I would like to point out that good use of pronation/supination was a dirty secret in the badminton and tennis pro circles and wasn't taught in mainstream coaching, it was very much later that it was acknowledged that it was one of the primary sources of power for pros. 

It's actually the same for table tennis, with many coaches telling you to close the bat angle after contact but neglect to explain the actual physical mechanisms behind that ie pronation/supination. Test it out, you can't physically close the bat angle without pronation or supinating your arm. 

So some scientifically minded observe correctly that the followthrough should not affect the ball, however the truth is that the followthrough is evidence of what happened during contact because the need to decelerate after contact. For e.g. if you never close your bat angle after hitting the ball, you never pronated/supinated. 

By timing the pronation or supination well you likely have increased the tangential component of force going into the ball which generated more topspin which helped to "bring the ball down". However if you actively rely on it you have to be sure you have amazing timing otherwise it will result in  many mishits, which is why coaches usually ask students to keep it simple ie use the same bat angle.


-------------
-------
Tacky rubber lover :)

Stiga Clipper CR

FH: Hurricane 8
BH: Hurricane 3-50


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 6:05am
I have little/no problem with what you have written, blahness.  Most people learn their strokes by watching others and copying them so I don't think telling people to keep the same angle is what people usually do (they don't).

My concern is when someone says something trivially true without explain what they think its practical implications for how you should play TT are.  CComparing the after motions of a serve or a wiggly to the follow contact and follow through of a fast spinny loop is ludicrous.  Of course all that matter is what happened at the ball.  But as you have pointed out and which is my main point, elements of the stroke need preparation and completion to create their effect at the ball and a naive focus on just what happens at the ball will make it harder to learn the stroke.  The simplest way I explain it to people is that a full stroke is a path. Taking the racket through that path has an effect.  Don't let an obsession with what happens at contact blind you to the fact that what happens before and after plays a huge role so you likely need a full stroke to learn the proper path.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: FruitLoop
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 6:07am
No physicist would claim that what happens before and after contact does not affect what happens to the ball. Those are the equivalent of flat earthers not physicists. The bat does not teleport into contact then immediately out of contact.


Posted By: blahness
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 6:43am
Originally posted by FruitLoop FruitLoop wrote:

No physicist would claim that what happens before and after contact does not affect what happens to the ball. Those are the equivalent of flat earthers not physicists. The bat does not teleport into contact then immediately out of contact.

Savage LOLLOLLOL


-------------
-------
Tacky rubber lover :)

Stiga Clipper CR

FH: Hurricane 8
BH: Hurricane 3-50


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 6:44am
Originally posted by FruitLoop FruitLoop wrote:

No physicist would claim that what happens before and after contact does not affect what happens to the ball. Those are the equivalent of flat earthers not physicists. The bat does not teleport into contact then immediately out of contact.

Yes, this is true.  What I really mean is that you need to play table tennis at a high enough level to appreciate the kind of models you properly need to explain the important variables.  Saying that pressing down after contact is useless is the kind of thing that a physicist would say if they don't play at a high enough level to realize that pressing down after contact affects how the stroke is prepared before contact and what happens at contact.  It is just simpler to say the swing is a path.  But I am more interested in helping people become better players than being extremely precise about the physics. 


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: Tinykin
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 7:15am
Originally posted by FruitLoop FruitLoop wrote:

No physicist would claim that what happens before and after contact does not affect what happens to the ball. Those are the equivalent of flat earthers not physicists. The bat does not teleport into contact then immediately out of contact.
.

Most  TTplayer-physicists, physicists, engineers, biologists, artists, painters etc would understand the advice in the message.



-------------
>65yo, presently overweight rather than obese.

Currently testing; Darker Speed90 with T05H/Dignics05. Update; T05 on BH is impressive when all is right,but D05 wins more points

Delusion is an asset


Posted By: Slowhand
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 11:03am
Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

if you think of closing the bat angle after contact, what you're actually doing is activating arm pronation and/or supination to increase power transferred to the ball.

That's right. Consciously supinating after contact can help you do it during contact. Changes in the kinetic chain before and after contact can make it harder or easier to hit a particular shot. But no one particular kinetic chain is necessary to hit a particular shot. You can get the same ball spin, speed, and trajectory with a shorter, longer or differently shaped backswing or follow through. You can start the chain from your legs, core, or shoulder. You can finish abruptly just after contact or let your wrist snap through and extend and supinate your arm. But the only part of the swing that counts to the ball is during the few milliseconds of contact. Straw man arguments aside, not everyone knows this fact which is helpful to know. While there's definitely bad technique that makes something harder, and wrong technique that makes it impossible, there's also more than one right way to produce almost any tt shot.


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 12:44pm
Originally posted by Slowhand Slowhand wrote:

Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

if you think of closing the bat angle after contact, what you're actually doing is activating arm pronation and/or supination to increase power transferred to the ball.

That's right. Consciously supinating after contact can help you do it during contact. Changes in the kinetic chain before and after contact can make it harder or easier to hit a particular shot. But no one particular kinetic chain is necessary to hit a particular shot. You can get the same ball spin, speed, and trajectory with a shorter, longer or differently shaped backswing or follow through. You can start the chain from your legs, core, or shoulder. You can finish abruptly just after contact or let your wrist snap through and extend and supinate your arm. But the only part of the swing that counts to the ball is during the few milliseconds of contact. Straw man arguments aside, not everyone knows this fact which is helpful to know. While there's definitely bad technique that makes something harder, and wrong technique that makes it impossible, there's also more than one right way to produce almost any tt shot.

"There is more than one right way to produce almost any TT shot".

This is actually not the point of stressing the importance of the follow through.  The question is whether you can get someone to use the same technique to produce the same quality of TT shot by starting the racket one way and following through in more than one way (in one stroke/swing), all other things being equal.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 4:53pm
Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Slowhand Slowhand wrote:

Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

if you think of closing the bat angle after contact, what you're actually doing is activating arm pronation and/or supination to increase power transferred to the ball.

That's right. Consciously supinating after contact can help you do it during contact. Changes in the kinetic chain before and after contact can make it harder or easier to hit a particular shot. But no one particular kinetic chain is necessary to hit a particular shot. You can get the same ball spin, speed, and trajectory with a shorter, longer or differently shaped backswing or follow through. You can start the chain from your legs, core, or shoulder. You can finish abruptly just after contact or let your wrist snap through and extend and supinate your arm. But the only part of the swing that counts to the ball is during the few milliseconds of contact. Straw man arguments aside, not everyone knows this fact which is helpful to know. While there's definitely bad technique that makes something harder, and wrong technique that makes it impossible, there's also more than one right way to produce almost any tt shot.

"There is more than one right way to produce almost any TT shot".

This is actually not the point of stressing the importance of the follow through.  The question is whether you can get someone to use the same technique to produce the same quality of TT shot by starting the racket one way and following through in more than one way (in one stroke/swing), all other things being equal.
You can't. There's a reason why a follow through is like it is. If the acceleration and so on is the same in both strokes, then it's impossible to have a different follow through. Or at least significantly different. If someone has to do half of the follow through he normally does, then he won't be able to apply the same things before the contact. 
Just an example to make it more visual I guess...
Example: let's say you are sprinting to a finish line that is marked with a cone. A second cone is somewhere way back behind the first cone to mark the point where he has to stop. The runner is going to run over the finish line with a certain speed. Now change the second cone and put it closer to the finish line. The runner again has to stop at the second cone. It is now impossible for the runner to cross the finish line with the same speed and be able o stop at the second cone. In order for him to stop there, he needs to let loose of the speed a bit if he wants to stop at the second cone. Assuming the cones are close to the finish line (just like the follow through in table tennis).


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 6:05pm
Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Slowhand Slowhand wrote:

Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

if you think of closing the bat angle after contact, what you're actually doing is activating arm pronation and/or supination to increase power transferred to the ball.

That's right. Consciously supinating after contact can help you do it during contact. Changes in the kinetic chain before and after contact can make it harder or easier to hit a particular shot. But no one particular kinetic chain is necessary to hit a particular shot. You can get the same ball spin, speed, and trajectory with a shorter, longer or differently shaped backswing or follow through. You can start the chain from your legs, core, or shoulder. You can finish abruptly just after contact or let your wrist snap through and extend and supinate your arm. But the only part of the swing that counts to the ball is during the few milliseconds of contact. Straw man arguments aside, not everyone knows this fact which is helpful to know. While there's definitely bad technique that makes something harder, and wrong technique that makes it impossible, there's also more than one right way to produce almost any tt shot.

"There is more than one right way to produce almost any TT shot".

This is actually not the point of stressing the importance of the follow through.  The question is whether you can get someone to use the same technique to produce the same quality of TT shot by starting the racket one way and following through in more than one way (in one stroke/swing), all other things being equal.
You can't. There's a reason why a follow through is like it is. If the acceleration and so on is the same in both strokes, then it's impossible to have a different follow through. Or at least significantly different. If someone has to do half of the follow through he normally does, then he won't be able to apply the same things before the contact. 
Just an example to make it more visual I guess...
Example: let's say you are sprinting to a finish line that is marked with a cone. A second cone is somewhere way back behind the first cone to mark the point where he has to stop. The runner is going to run over the finish line with a certain speed. Now change the second cone and put it closer to the finish line. The runner again has to stop at the second cone. It is now impossible for the runner to cross the finish line with the same speed and be able o stop at the second cone. In order for him to stop there, he needs to let loose of the speed a bit if he wants to stop at the second cone. Assuming the cones are close to the finish line (just like the follow through in table tennis).

I agree 100%. My complaints are because these statements like "follow through doesn't matter" confused me when I first heard them as an adult beginner a few years ago.  Later when I saw the kinds of players who were making them, I realized I should never have been listening to them.

I would also argue that if you swing with a turning force to bring the paddle down, the swing effect is different from if you swing with a turning force  to finish higher and recover after the stroke downward.  That is why acting like where Wang Hao is swinging towards in the videos from zeio has no effect on the stroke shows an impractical approach to TT.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 6:51pm
Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Slowhand Slowhand wrote:

Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

if you think of closing the bat angle after contact, what you're actually doing is activating arm pronation and/or supination to increase power transferred to the ball.

That's right. Consciously supinating after contact can help you do it during contact. Changes in the kinetic chain before and after contact can make it harder or easier to hit a particular shot. But no one particular kinetic chain is necessary to hit a particular shot. You can get the same ball spin, speed, and trajectory with a shorter, longer or differently shaped backswing or follow through. You can start the chain from your legs, core, or shoulder. You can finish abruptly just after contact or let your wrist snap through and extend and supinate your arm. But the only part of the swing that counts to the ball is during the few milliseconds of contact. Straw man arguments aside, not everyone knows this fact which is helpful to know. While there's definitely bad technique that makes something harder, and wrong technique that makes it impossible, there's also more than one right way to produce almost any tt shot.

"There is more than one right way to produce almost any TT shot".

This is actually not the point of stressing the importance of the follow through.  The question is whether you can get someone to use the same technique to produce the same quality of TT shot by starting the racket one way and following through in more than one way (in one stroke/swing), all other things being equal.
You can't. There's a reason why a follow through is like it is. If the acceleration and so on is the same in both strokes, then it's impossible to have a different follow through. Or at least significantly different. If someone has to do half of the follow through he normally does, then he won't be able to apply the same things before the contact. 
Just an example to make it more visual I guess...
Example: let's say you are sprinting to a finish line that is marked with a cone. A second cone is somewhere way back behind the first cone to mark the point where he has to stop. The runner is going to run over the finish line with a certain speed. Now change the second cone and put it closer to the finish line. The runner again has to stop at the second cone. It is now impossible for the runner to cross the finish line with the same speed and be able o stop at the second cone. In order for him to stop there, he needs to let loose of the speed a bit if he wants to stop at the second cone. Assuming the cones are close to the finish line (just like the follow through in table tennis).

I agree 100%. My complaints are because these statements like "follow through doesn't matter" confused me when I first heard them as an adult beginner a few years ago.  Later when I saw the kinds of players who were making them, I realized I should never have been listening to them.

I would also argue that if you swing with a turning force to bring the paddle down, the swing effect is different from if you swing with a turning force  to finish higher and recover after the stroke downward.  That is why acting like where Wang Hao is swinging towards in the videos from zeio has no effect on the stroke shows an impractical approach to TT.
" follow through doesn't matter" is always a wrong statement no matter how you twist and turn it. If a follow through is too long, then the recovery will be bad. So shortening the stroke is a good idea. If you have no problem recovering in time, then it doesn't matter what you do for the recovery. Might as well do a backflip in between shots. But the "doesn't matter" statement is total horsesh*t. I guess one really have to be new to the game to not question it. And I guess to make such a statement, one really has to never thought of table tennis in a slightly more intellectual way.


Posted By: blahness
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 8:56pm
Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Slowhand Slowhand wrote:

Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

if you think of closing the bat angle after contact, what you're actually doing is activating arm pronation and/or supination to increase power transferred to the ball.

That's right. Consciously supinating after contact can help you do it during contact. Changes in the kinetic chain before and after contact can make it harder or easier to hit a particular shot. But no one particular kinetic chain is necessary to hit a particular shot. You can get the same ball spin, speed, and trajectory with a shorter, longer or differently shaped backswing or follow through. You can start the chain from your legs, core, or shoulder. You can finish abruptly just after contact or let your wrist snap through and extend and supinate your arm. But the only part of the swing that counts to the ball is during the few milliseconds of contact. Straw man arguments aside, not everyone knows this fact which is helpful to know. While there's definitely bad technique that makes something harder, and wrong technique that makes it impossible, there's also more than one right way to produce almost any tt shot.

"There is more than one right way to produce almost any TT shot".

This is actually not the point of stressing the importance of the follow through.  The question is whether you can get someone to use the same technique to produce the same quality of TT shot by starting the racket one way and following through in more than one way (in one stroke/swing), all other things being equal.
You can't. There's a reason why a follow through is like it is. If the acceleration and so on is the same in both strokes, then it's impossible to have a different follow through. Or at least significantly different. If someone has to do half of the follow through he normally does, then he won't be able to apply the same things before the contact. 
Just an example to make it more visual I guess...
Example: let's say you are sprinting to a finish line that is marked with a cone. A second cone is somewhere way back behind the first cone to mark the point where he has to stop. The runner is going to run over the finish line with a certain speed. Now change the second cone and put it closer to the finish line. The runner again has to stop at the second cone. It is now impossible for the runner to cross the finish line with the same speed and be able o stop at the second cone. In order for him to stop there, he needs to let loose of the speed a bit if he wants to stop at the second cone. Assuming the cones are close to the finish line (just like the follow through in table tennis).

I agree 100%. My complaints are because these statements like "follow through doesn't matter" confused me when I first heard them as an adult beginner a few years ago.  Later when I saw the kinds of players who were making them, I realized I should never have been listening to them.

I would also argue that if you swing with a turning force to bring the paddle down, the swing effect is different from if you swing with a turning force  to finish higher and recover after the stroke downward.  That is why acting like where Wang Hao is swinging towards in the videos from zeio has no effect on the stroke shows an impractical approach to TT.
" follow through doesn't matter" is always a wrong statement no matter how you twist and turn it. If a follow through is too long, then the recovery will be bad. So shortening the stroke is a good idea. If you have no problem recovering in time, then it doesn't matter what you do for the recovery. Might as well do a backflip in between shots. But the "doesn't matter" statement is total horsesh*t. I guess one really have to be new to the game to not question it. And I guess to make such a statement, one really has to never thought of table tennis in a slightly more intellectual way.

Agreed, due to biomechanics there's only very few optimal ways of producing maximum rackethead speed. There's slight variations however the basic principles remain the same. 


-------------
-------
Tacky rubber lover :)

Stiga Clipper CR

FH: Hurricane 8
BH: Hurricane 3-50


Posted By: Slowhand
Date Posted: 02/13/2019 at 9:44pm
Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Slowhand Slowhand wrote:

Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

if you think of closing the bat angle after contact, what you're actually doing is activating arm pronation and/or supination to increase power transferred to the ball.

That's right. Consciously supinating after contact can help you do it during contact. Changes in the kinetic chain before and after contact can make it harder or easier to hit a particular shot. But no one particular kinetic chain is necessary to hit a particular shot. You can get the same ball spin, speed, and trajectory with a shorter, longer or differently shaped backswing or follow through. You can start the chain from your legs, core, or shoulder. You can finish abruptly just after contact or let your wrist snap through and extend and supinate your arm. But the only part of the swing that counts to the ball is during the few milliseconds of contact. Straw man arguments aside, not everyone knows this fact which is helpful to know. While there's definitely bad technique that makes something harder, and wrong technique that makes it impossible, there's also more than one right way to produce almost any tt shot.

"There is more than one right way to produce almost any TT shot".

This is actually not the point of stressing the importance of the follow through.  The question is whether you can get someone to use the same technique to produce the same quality of TT shot by starting the racket one way and following through in more than one way (in one stroke/swing), all other things being equal.
You can't. There's a reason why a follow through is like it is. If the acceleration and so on is the same in both strokes, then it's impossible to have a different follow through. Or at least significantly different. If someone has to do half of the follow through he normally does, then he won't be able to apply the same things before the contact. 
Just an example to make it more visual I guess...
Example: let's say you are sprinting to a finish line that is marked with a cone. A second cone is somewhere way back behind the first cone to mark the point where he has to stop. The runner is going to run over the finish line with a certain speed. Now change the second cone and put it closer to the finish line. The runner again has to stop at the second cone. It is now impossible for the runner to cross the finish line with the same speed and be able o stop at the second cone. In order for him to stop there, he needs to let loose of the speed a bit if he wants to stop at the second cone. Assuming the cones are close to the finish line (just like the follow through in table tennis).

I agree 100%. My complaints are because these statements like "follow through doesn't matter" confused me when I first heard them as an adult beginner a few years ago.  Later when I saw the kinds of players who were making them, I realized I should never have been listening to them.

I would also argue that if you swing with a turning force to bring the paddle down, the swing effect is different from if you swing with a turning force  to finish higher and recover after the stroke downward.  That is why acting like where Wang Hao is swinging towards in the videos from zeio has no effect on the stroke shows an impractical approach to TT.
" follow through doesn't matter" is always a wrong statement no matter how you twist and turn it. If a follow through is too long, then the recovery will be bad. So shortening the stroke is a good idea. If you have no problem recovering in time, then it doesn't matter what you do for the recovery. Might as well do a backflip in between shots. But the "doesn't matter" statement is total horsesh*t. I guess one really have to be new to the game to not question it. And I guess to make such a statement, one really has to never thought of table tennis in a slightly more intellectual way.

Agreed, due to biomechanics there's only very few optimal ways of producing maximum rackethead speed. There's slight variations however the basic principles remain the same. 
I have to disagree with all the agreement. Here's the question stated by NextLevel: "The question is whether you can get someone to use the same technique to produce the same quality of TT shot by starting the racket one way and following through in more than one way (in one stroke/swing), all other things being equal." You all say you can't, but of course you can. One example to make this clear: Two backhands can be identical until just after the moment of ball contact, so shot quality will be identical. After contact the follow through can be made short for one (by tensing up and stopping the racket as quickly as possible) and long for the other (by remaining relaxed and letting momentum carry the wrist snap/supination/arm extension much further). Same shot quality, different follow through.

I use this example because I've been told that a longer more relaxed follow through often allows quicker recovery than a shorter more abrupt follow through. Surprised me, but I've been experimenting with it on backhand counters and I think it's true. It seems like tensing up in order to stop short and then having to recover from a dead stop can (often but not always) take more time and energy than recovery from a longer but more relaxed follow through. This is what suggested to me that the exaggerated downward follow through of Wang Hao and FZD might be less involved with shot quality and more for faster recovery.


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 12:26am
Originally posted by Slowhand Slowhand wrote:

Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Slowhand Slowhand wrote:

Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

if you think of closing the bat angle after contact, what you're actually doing is activating arm pronation and/or supination to increase power transferred to the ball.

That's right. Consciously supinating after contact can help you do it during contact. Changes in the kinetic chain before and after contact can make it harder or easier to hit a particular shot. But no one particular kinetic chain is necessary to hit a particular shot. You can get the same ball spin, speed, and trajectory with a shorter, longer or differently shaped backswing or follow through. You can start the chain from your legs, core, or shoulder. You can finish abruptly just after contact or let your wrist snap through and extend and supinate your arm. But the only part of the swing that counts to the ball is during the few milliseconds of contact. Straw man arguments aside, not everyone knows this fact which is helpful to know. While there's definitely bad technique that makes something harder, and wrong technique that makes it impossible, there's also more than one right way to produce almost any tt shot.

"There is more than one right way to produce almost any TT shot".

This is actually not the point of stressing the importance of the follow through.  The question is whether you can get someone to use the same technique to produce the same quality of TT shot by starting the racket one way and following through in more than one way (in one stroke/swing), all other things being equal.
You can't. There's a reason why a follow through is like it is. If the acceleration and so on is the same in both strokes, then it's impossible to have a different follow through. Or at least significantly different. If someone has to do half of the follow through he normally does, then he won't be able to apply the same things before the contact. 
Just an example to make it more visual I guess...
Example: let's say you are sprinting to a finish line that is marked with a cone. A second cone is somewhere way back behind the first cone to mark the point where he has to stop. The runner is going to run over the finish line with a certain speed. Now change the second cone and put it closer to the finish line. The runner again has to stop at the second cone. It is now impossible for the runner to cross the finish line with the same speed and be able o stop at the second cone. In order for him to stop there, he needs to let loose of the speed a bit if he wants to stop at the second cone. Assuming the cones are close to the finish line (just like the follow through in table tennis).

I agree 100%. My complaints are because these statements like "follow through doesn't matter" confused me when I first heard them as an adult beginner a few years ago.  Later when I saw the kinds of players who were making them, I realized I should never have been listening to them.

I would also argue that if you swing with a turning force to bring the paddle down, the swing effect is different from if you swing with a turning force  to finish higher and recover after the stroke downward.  That is why acting like where Wang Hao is swinging towards in the videos from zeio has no effect on the stroke shows an impractical approach to TT.
" follow through doesn't matter" is always a wrong statement no matter how you twist and turn it. If a follow through is too long, then the recovery will be bad. So shortening the stroke is a good idea. If you have no problem recovering in time, then it doesn't matter what you do for the recovery. Might as well do a backflip in between shots. But the "doesn't matter" statement is total horsesh*t. I guess one really have to be new to the game to not question it. And I guess to make such a statement, one really has to never thought of table tennis in a slightly more intellectual way.

Agreed, due to biomechanics there's only very few optimal ways of producing maximum rackethead speed. There's slight variations however the basic principles remain the same. 
I have to disagree with all the agreement. Here's the question stated by NextLevel: "The question is whether you can get someone to use the same technique to produce the same quality of TT shot by starting the racket one way and following through in more than one way (in one stroke/swing), all other things being equal." You all say you can't, but of course you can. One example to make this clear: Two backhands can be identical until just after the moment of ball contact, so shot quality will be identical. After contact the follow through can be made short for one (by tensing up and stopping the racket as quickly as possible) and long for the other (by remaining relaxed and letting momentum carry the wrist snap/supination/arm extension much further). Same shot quality, different follow through.

I use this example because I've been told that a longer more relaxed follow through often allows quicker recovery than a shorter more abrupt follow through. Surprised me, but I've been experimenting with it on backhand counters and I think it's true. It seems like tensing up in order to stop short and then having to recover from a dead stop can (often but not always) take more time and energy than recovery from a longer but more relaxed follow through. This is what suggested to me that the exaggerated downward follow through of Wang Hao and FZD might be less involved with shot quality and more for faster recovery.

Okay.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 2:05am
@ slowhand I disagree. I thought it would be clear out of the discussion we all had the last couple of days. You say that you can do the exact same stroke (all things being the same) before the contact, but can shorten the stroke by tensing up right after the contact. If you do that, then you'll actually tense up a little before the contact as well, reducing your shot quality on contact. 


Posted By: Slowhand
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 4:05am
Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

@ slowhand I disagree. I thought it would be clear out of the discussion we all had the last couple of days. You say that you can do the exact same stroke (all things being the same) before the contact, but can shorten the stroke by tensing up right after the contact. If you do that, then you'll actually tense up a little before the contact as well, reducing your shot quality on contact. 

Certainly you can add tension too soon and effect shot quality. I agree this is unavoidable is you try to stop your follow through instantly after contact. But the example only involves shortening follow through, not eliminating it, by adding the tension after contact. I think you're suggesting that there's no way to add tension after contact without also adding tension before contact. Maybe because you believe tt strokes are too fast and human reflexes too slow to shorten the follow through without doing this? Or because it's psychologically impossible to shorten follow through without unconsciously tensing up before it's physically necessary? I disagree with both those ideas but maybe I misunderstand what you mean. 


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 6:54am
yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting. And it's also simple physics I guess. You need a certain amount of time to stop all the force that you produced. It is certainly possible to get the same quality stroke with a shorter follow through, but then everything before contact isn't the same. And I guarantee you, if you're runnin towards a finish line and in the second sprint the wall is suddenly much closer to the finish line, you definitely won't cross the line at the same speed that you had in the first run. Same with table tennis. You just need a certain amount of time distance to stop the power of the stroke.


Posted By: blahness
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 7:28am
Back to the current topic....

I noticed that the OPs technique has the elbow quite close to the waist, whereas most modern BHs have elbows more stuck in front of the body... 

What's the advantages and disadvantages of the different elbow positions?

The other thing I was always a bit unsure is the bat tip direction during contact, do you contact with the bat pointing to the side, bottom or top, which is optimal?


-------------
-------
Tacky rubber lover :)

Stiga Clipper CR

FH: Hurricane 8
BH: Hurricane 3-50


Posted By: blahness
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 7:46am
One thing i was experimenting around was despite all the emphasis on "sideways movement" on the BH, to produce strong topspin, I think you still have to brush the top half of the ball forward, and your bat tip should point towards the front at the end of the stroke. I believe the sideway movement is more on emphasizing the use of the body, but the essence of the ball contact should still be brushing the top of the ball towards the front, not contacting the ball on the side and then swinging sideways!

-------------
-------
Tacky rubber lover :)

Stiga Clipper CR

FH: Hurricane 8
BH: Hurricane 3-50


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 8:32am
Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

One thing i was experimenting around was despite all the emphasis on "sideways movement" on the BH, to produce strong topspin, I think you still have to brush the top half of the ball forward, and your bat tip should point towards the front at the end of the stroke. I believe the sideway movement is more on emphasizing the use of the body, but the essence of the ball contact should still be brushing the top of the ball towards the front, not contacting the ball on the side and then swinging sideways!

It is spinning over the ball to finish downwards .  The stroke is circular so the start of it is forwards and over the ball but it finishes to the side of you.  It is similar to the trajectory of a forehand topspin.  The key thing here is that you don't want the stroke to be going upwards forever if it is topspin.  Some people thing Wang Hao is finishing where he is because of recovery, but the truth is that look at an upside down U or semi-circle, it is the stroke path to handle the incoming spin.  He isn't so much producing strong topspin (which he will do with any looping stroke because he is Wang Hao) but trapping and relooping strong topspin.  IT might not even be "pure" topspin he is producing but the key is to produce a quality shot.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 8:33am
Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting. And it's also simple physics I guess. You need a certain amount of time to stop all the force that you produced. It is certainly possible to get the same quality stroke with a shorter follow through, but then everything before contact isn't the same. And I guarantee you, if you're runnin towards a finish line and in the second sprint the wall is suddenly much closer to the finish line, you definitely won't cross the line at the same speed that you had in the first run. Same with table tennis. You just need a certain amount of time distance to stop the power of the stroke.

I agree with you 100% obviously.  I hate bringing in experience with table tennis as a factor in these discussions, but often, I find that this is what is happening on the internet in my experience.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 8:37am
Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

Back to the current topic....

I noticed that the OPs technique has the elbow quite close to the waist, whereas most modern BHs have elbows more stuck in front of the body... 

What's the advantages and disadvantages of the different elbow positions?

The other thing I was always a bit unsure is the bat tip direction during contact, do you contact with the bat pointing to the side, bottom or top, which is optimal?

Elbow to the side of the body produces more leverage/torque and also improves control of racket angles on shots.  I don't think there is any advantage to elbow being to close to the body other than just being easy to do (some might call it lazy).  If someone was looking for more quality from OP, he might ask OP to move that elbow out a little.

PS - I Watched the video and I didn't see anything wrong with the elbow position of the OP coach.


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 10:12am
Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

One thing i was experimenting around was despite all the emphasis on "sideways movement" on the BH, to produce strong topspin, I think you still have to brush the top half of the ball forward, and your bat tip should point towards the front at the end of the stroke. I believe the sideway movement is more on emphasizing the use of the body, but the essence of the ball contact should still be brushing the top of the ball towards the front, not contacting the ball on the side and then swinging sideways!
try to play the backhand topspin straight. You want to put all the power in a straight line when hitting the ball. The wrist can be stopped quite early in that case. If you look at the wrist position of Lin Gaoliang for example, his wrist doesn't even go to an alignment with his forearm. Everything that goes to the side in your follow through for example, doesn't effect the quality in a positive way. If you think about it that way, then you'll have a better power impact on the backhand.


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 12:26pm
Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

One thing i was experimenting around was despite all the emphasis on "sideways movement" on the BH, to produce strong topspin, I think you still have to brush the top half of the ball forward, and your bat tip should point towards the front at the end of the stroke. I believe the sideway movement is more on emphasizing the use of the body, but the essence of the ball contact should still be brushing the top of the ball towards the front, not contacting the ball on the side and then swinging sideways!
try to play the backhand topspin straight. You want to put all the power in a straight line when hitting the ball. The wrist can be stopped quite early in that case. If you look at the wrist position of Lin Gaoliang for example, his wrist doesn't even go to an alignment with his forearm. Everything that goes to the side in your follow through for example, doesn't effect the quality in a positive way. If you think about it that way, then you'll have a better power impact on the backhand.

Better power yes.  But I am not sure you will trap the topspin as well.  But maybe how the shot feels to me is not what I am doing. 


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 12:39pm
That's why I'm saying to play the ball "straight". This is of course only possible if you take the ball with good timing. To trap the ball you can do this circular movement like want Hao Wink


Posted By: Slowhand
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 1:38pm
Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting. And it's also simple physics I guess. You need a certain amount of time to stop all the force that you produced. It is certainly possible to get the same quality stroke with a shorter follow through, but then everything before contact isn't the same. And I guarantee you, if you're runnin towards a finish line and in the second sprint the wall is suddenly much closer to the finish line, you definitely won't cross the line at the same speed that you had in the first run. Same with table tennis. You just need a certain amount of time distance to stop the power of the stroke.
Thanks, that's clear and reasonable. One final thought as to why I disagree. If it's impossible to shorten follow though then it's also impossible to lengthen it without changing shot quality (otherwise you could shorten the longer follow through). This doesn't match my experience experimenting with different follow throughs but of course I could be mistaken.


Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 1:46pm
Originally posted by Slowhand Slowhand wrote:

Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting. And it's also simple physics I guess. You need a certain amount of time to stop all the force that you produced. It is certainly possible to get the same quality stroke with a shorter follow through, but then everything before contact isn't the same. And I guarantee you, if you're runnin towards a finish line and in the second sprint the wall is suddenly much closer to the finish line, you definitely won't cross the line at the same speed that you had in the first run. Same with table tennis. You just need a certain amount of time distance to stop the power of the stroke.
Thanks, that's clear and reasonable. One final thought as to why I disagree. If it's impossible to shorten follow though then it's also impossible to lengthen it without changing shot quality (otherwise you could shorten the longer follow through). This doesn't match my experience experimenting with different follow throughs but of course I could be mistaken.

This is actually quite true as well all things being equal as long as the stroke is a single swing.  A lot of the stroke speed is gained on the quality of the backswing.  That is why circular or whip motions to gain acceleration on the backswing to add speed to the forward swing are common in high level table tennis.  You aren't going to accelerate enough to have a good follow through without a good backswing. 

It would help to post video of your experience with follow through and see whether you are producing quite the same ball.  I can post my experience and I can show it makes a lot of difference. 


-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Carbonado 45
FH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 B
BH: Fastarc C-1 2.0 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.


Posted By: Slowhand
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 2:44pm
Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Slowhand Slowhand wrote:

Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting. And it's also simple physics I guess. You need a certain amount of time to stop all the force that you produced. It is certainly possible to get the same quality stroke with a shorter follow through, but then everything before contact isn't the same. And I guarantee you, if you're runnin towards a finish line and in the second sprint the wall is suddenly much closer to the finish line, you definitely won't cross the line at the same speed that you had in the first run. Same with table tennis. You just need a certain amount of time distance to stop the power of the stroke.
Thanks, that's clear and reasonable. One final thought as to why I disagree. If it's impossible to shorten follow though then it's also impossible to lengthen it without changing shot quality (otherwise you could shorten the longer follow through). This doesn't match my experience experimenting with different follow throughs but of course I could be mistaken.

This is actually quite true as well all things being equal as long as the stroke is a single swing.  A lot of the stroke speed is gained on the quality of the backswing.  That is why circular or whip motions to gain acceleration on the backswing to add speed to the forward swing are common in high level table tennis.  You aren't going to accelerate enough to have a good follow through without a good backswing. 

It would help to post video of your experience with follow through and see whether you are producing quite the same ball.  I can post my experience and I can show it makes a lot of difference. 
It's an interesting contention and you could be right. Maybe a whip action bh is short and fast enough that the follow through is essentially predetermined by what you do before contact. I'll definitely think about this as I'm training but unfortunately won't post video to protect online anonymity. So not fair to request your video but I'd be interested in seeing anything you posted.


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 3:00pm
why not post a video? We are on a table tennis forum. There's nothing negative about a sports video. You could even delete it after next level sees it. Upload it somewhere and put it on private. You can make it available via a link. 


Posted By: blahness
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 4:28pm
Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

One thing i was experimenting around was despite all the emphasis on "sideways movement" on the BH, to produce strong topspin, I think you still have to brush the top half of the ball forward, and your bat tip should point towards the front at the end of the stroke. I believe the sideway movement is more on emphasizing the use of the body, but the essence of the ball contact should still be brushing the top of the ball towards the front, not contacting the ball on the side and then swinging sideways!
try to play the backhand topspin straight. You want to put all the power in a straight line when hitting the ball. The wrist can be stopped quite early in that case. If you look at the wrist position of Lin Gaoliang for example, his wrist doesn't even go to an alignment with his forearm. Everything that goes to the side in your follow through for example, doesn't effect the quality in a positive way. If you think about it that way, then you'll have a better power impact on the backhand.

Better power yes.  But I am not sure you will trap the topspin as well.  But maybe how the shot feels to me is not what I am doing. 

Thanks for all the input, so in terms of the racket tip direction, I would think that during contact it should be pointing towards the side, so that you have more room to brush the ball forward till your racket tip points towards the front right? What I understand is against strong topspin you also need a downwards component so you would have to start high and finish downwards, but the essence of the ball contact should remain the same. Against strong topspin it could also be helpful to contact more to the side to avoid the rotation axis in my opinion which helps in controlling strong spin.


-------------
-------
Tacky rubber lover :)

Stiga Clipper CR

FH: Hurricane 8
BH: Hurricane 3-50


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 6:38pm
Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

One thing i was experimenting around was despite all the emphasis on "sideways movement" on the BH, to produce strong topspin, I think you still have to brush the top half of the ball forward, and your bat tip should point towards the front at the end of the stroke. I believe the sideway movement is more on emphasizing the use of the body, but the essence of the ball contact should still be brushing the top of the ball towards the front, not contacting the ball on the side and then swinging sideways!
try to play the backhand topspin straight. You want to put all the power in a straight line when hitting the ball. The wrist can be stopped quite early in that case. If you look at the wrist position of Lin Gaoliang for example, his wrist doesn't even go to an alignment with his forearm. Everything that goes to the side in your follow through for example, doesn't effect the quality in a positive way. If you think about it that way, then you'll have a better power impact on the backhand.

Better power yes.  But I am not sure you will trap the topspin as well.  But maybe how the shot feels to me is not what I am doing. 

Thanks for all the input, so in terms of the racket tip direction, I would think that during contact it should be pointing towards the side, so that you have more room to brush the ball forward till your racket tip points towards the front right? What I understand is against strong topspin you also need a downwards component so you would have to start high and finish downwards, but the essence of the ball contact should remain the same. Against strong topspin it could also be helpful to contact more to the side to avoid the rotation axis in my opinion which helps in controlling strong spin.
It's pretty simple actually. Against topspin you need to go over the ball. Period. Against a topspin shot, you're better of blocking than trying some professional countertopspin. I think you are overthinking the topspin too much. Yes the racket head points towards the side at the beginning of the contact and goes forward during the contact a little. But it's not necessary to finish the wrist so far out. But it depends on your technique. Again the ripping technique would stop the wrist earlier than with the technique where you just throw your arm into the ball. If you were to post a video, then I could give you more useful advice. Videos always help a lot.


Posted By: blahness
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 8:52pm
Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

Originally posted by NextLevel NextLevel wrote:

Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

One thing i was experimenting around was despite all the emphasis on "sideways movement" on the BH, to produce strong topspin, I think you still have to brush the top half of the ball forward, and your bat tip should point towards the front at the end of the stroke. I believe the sideway movement is more on emphasizing the use of the body, but the essence of the ball contact should still be brushing the top of the ball towards the front, not contacting the ball on the side and then swinging sideways!
try to play the backhand topspin straight. You want to put all the power in a straight line when hitting the ball. The wrist can be stopped quite early in that case. If you look at the wrist position of Lin Gaoliang for example, his wrist doesn't even go to an alignment with his forearm. Everything that goes to the side in your follow through for example, doesn't effect the quality in a positive way. If you think about it that way, then you'll have a better power impact on the backhand.

Better power yes.  But I am not sure you will trap the topspin as well.  But maybe how the shot feels to me is not what I am doing. 

Thanks for all the input, so in terms of the racket tip direction, I would think that during contact it should be pointing towards the side, so that you have more room to brush the ball forward till your racket tip points towards the front right? What I understand is against strong topspin you also need a downwards component so you would have to start high and finish downwards, but the essence of the ball contact should remain the same. Against strong topspin it could also be helpful to contact more to the side to avoid the rotation axis in my opinion which helps in controlling strong spin.
It's pretty simple actually. Against topspin you need to go over the ball. Period. Against a topspin shot, you're better of blocking than trying some professional countertopspin. I think you are overthinking the topspin too much. Yes the racket head points towards the side at the beginning of the contact and goes forward during the contact a little. But it's not necessary to finish the wrist so far out. But it depends on your technique. Again the ripping technique would stop the wrist earlier than with the technique where you just throw your arm into the ball. If you were to post a video, then I could give you more useful advice. Videos always help a lot.

Yes I do placement blocking a lot, it's an integral part of my game, but the main problem I have sometimes is finishing off a weaker shot by the opponent. It's also partly caused by myself being too nice and blocking for everyone, missing the chances to practice my attacking topspins. The problem I have with videos is videos don't capture the "feeling" of the contact which is better communicated via words. You can have the exterior stroke right, but have poor ball quality if your contact is poor. 

I think we essentially agree on the contact mechanism anyway! Wink 


-------------
-------
Tacky rubber lover :)

Stiga Clipper CR

FH: Hurricane 8
BH: Hurricane 3-50


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 9:38pm
if you're having problems finishing off weaker shots, then go into practice games with the mindset to kill every ball that is reasonable. If your backhand lacks quality, then you either don't have the technique down as you think, or you have good technique in theory, but can't apply it on the table since the timing is bad. Also a good technique should include a good timing of the ball.


Posted By: blahness
Date Posted: 02/14/2019 at 10:13pm
Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

if you're having problems finishing off weaker shots, then go into practice games with the mindset to kill every ball that is reasonable. If your backhand lacks quality, then you either don't have the technique down as you think, or you have good technique in theory, but can't apply it on the table since the timing is bad. Also a good technique should include a good timing of the ball.

Yes that is what I need, to have the mindset to find a chance to kill the ball... I've started doing this but I'm only having like say a 20-30% accuracy rate compared to 80-90% if I do a simple counter. I wouldn't say my BH lacks qua lity just that it's inconsistent when I start applying more power. I feel like the problem is mostly timing due to lack of practice. It doesn't help that  many  club players are selfish and refuse to block properly. Countering and blocking works well only up to a certain level, after that you'll be punished if you do that because it doesn't pose enough of a threat. 


-------------
-------
Tacky rubber lover :)

Stiga Clipper CR

FH: Hurricane 8
BH: Hurricane 3-50


Posted By: blahness
Date Posted: 02/15/2019 at 12:38am
Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

if you're having problems finishing off weaker shots, then go into practice games with the mindset to kill every ball that is reasonable. If your backhand lacks quality, then you either don't have the technique down as you think, or you have good technique in theory, but can't apply it on the table since the timing is bad. Also a good technique should include a good timing of the ball.

Btw, all of us have deficient technique and think too highly of our technique if that's the bar you're setting, once you play with any professional they will simply cut you down with the simplest of strokes. I saw a match between Brian Pace a very highly rated US player and Fang Bo, he looked like he couldn't loop simple underspin pushes, couldn't receive a simple underspin serve and couldn't return a casual slow loop...must be pretty terrible timing he has! Wink 


-------------
-------
Tacky rubber lover :)

Stiga Clipper CR

FH: Hurricane 8
BH: Hurricane 3-50


Posted By: Tt Gold
Date Posted: 02/15/2019 at 6:21am
Originally posted by blahness blahness wrote:

Originally posted by Tt Gold Tt Gold wrote:

if you're having problems finishing off weaker shots, then go into practice games with the mindset to kill every ball that is reasonable. If your backhand lacks quality, then you either don't have the technique down as you think, or you have good technique in theory, but can't apply it on the table since the timing is bad. Also a good technique should include a good timing of the ball.

Btw, all of us have deficient technique and think too highly of our technique if that's the bar you're setting, once you play with any professional they will simply cut you down with the simplest of strokes. I saw a match between Brian Pace a very highly rated US player and Fang Bo, he looked like he couldn't loop simple underspin pushes, couldn't receive a simple underspin serve and couldn't return a casual slow loop...must be pretty terrible timing he has! Wink 
No. You can have a very good technique, even better than a professional and still be worse. And I don't think everyone thinks too highly of their technique. But you found something that can improve your game... "with the simplest of strokes" this is a very good point. Keeping it simple is always important. Do what works and don't overcomplicate things. And yes your consistency might suffer if you try to kill more balls after preparing them with your blocking, but that doesn't matter since it is in practice matches. The point is to program you to attack those balls in real matches. And if you don't practice enough and keep missing backhands that you try to play with power, then don't try that. There's no need to play a powerful backhand topspin.


Posted By: zeio
Date Posted: 02/15/2019 at 12:16pm
For future reference.


Super slow-mo


-------------
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


Posted By: zeio
Date Posted: 04/05/2019 at 6:34am


-------------
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



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net