Would this theory work in TT?

Came across this while learning some Badminton? Would this theory work in TT to generate more power in shots?

After some thought, I am thinking what he's saying has merit. Also, the fact the man was world champion doubles player in 1980.

Well, we already do this in TT. As best we can anyways since it is a faster sport (how often do you have to sit there and stare at the ball, then restart and hit it?). This can best be seen by the general migration of players to more compact strokes that have more "snap" to them.

tt4me wrote: BMonkey wrote: This can best be seen by the general migration of players to more compact strokes that have more "snap" to them. I would buy the more "snap" but not the pause. More "snap" equates to more speed.  More pause doesn't.

Exactly. That's why I said "it is a faster sport (how often do you have to sit there and stare at the ball, then restart and hit it?)"

V-Griper - thanks for all the videos - haven't had a chance to go through them all yet - but the baseball and golf ones were very interesting. 

The stop in badminton and "stop" in table tennis is different

The stop in TT is more like stepping towards the ball and putting weight on your right knee (for right handers), and getting the back swing ready to accerate forward with waist rotation.

I won't call that stop, I will call that step.

Also remember, badminton is a up right motion and coming down towards the ball, very differnt to TT, unless you want to compare going for incoming lobs.

yogi_bear wrote: tony, i think they do that on smashes against balls that were lobbed and bounced high. i dont think it is applicable in on the rise loops or loop drives.

yeah, and thinking about it, in TT there is more shoulder and back behind the shot for lobs than oppose to just arm and wrist motion.

AcudaDave wrote: This is similar to what I tell my son and some of my students when they are looping. It's more powerful if you stop for just a moment on the backswing and then snap through the loop rather than just 1 continuous motion where they never stop.

josepher wrote: The "theory" of the post is correct,

Wrong.

Acceleration is a change in velocity or direction of a moving or stationary body, and, as such, requires a force. There must be an output of energy (force) to change the velocity or direction. Whatever activity we're speaking of, badminton, table tennis, baseball, chopping wood, pushing a car, there is an action we variously refer to as windup, coil, backswing, etc., the purpose of which is to prepare our bodies to function in the most efficient way to achieve the acceleration.  Starting a backswing requires energy, but, and this is the key point, so does stopping it!

Right

Maybe the video in the op is just a teaching trick for people to visualize and separate the components of the stroke; then of course when the student understands and applies the trick (s)he will take advantage of the momentum of the back swing to partially feed the swing itself, like in a tennis serve.

A good analogy is the follow through after a fh (or a bh ) in tt: we can imagine a stiff person who at the end of the swing has the paddle going down to speed 0; it has then to come back from speed 0 to ready position before another back swing; then at the end of the back swing the paddle goes down to speed 0 again; and here starts the swing from speed 0...what a waste of energy! If the follow through + recovery follows an elliptical pattern then some energy from the swing is recycled to bring the paddle back and the energy invested to do so is itself partially recycled into doing the next back swing at the end of which the paddle never stops moving before the swing: the body does it all and makes sure the arm/paddle never lose its momentum.

We can imagine a coach separate all those moves and make the student understand each of them separately before having him/her connect all of them into a fluid routine. I think that's what the video in the op does.

JacekGM wrote: fatt, I wouldn't say the intention in the video clip was to show phases of the stroke; the guy emphasized that the interruption is necessary for added power... in badminton. He no doubt knows what he is talking about...

jrscatman wrote:  I always thought smooth consistent motion is the correctway.

It is.  In industry one always tries to make motion as smooth as possible.   It reduces wear and tear on machinery.   It will reduce wear and tear on you too.  Smooth motion requires less energy and that is important in reducing operating costs.   The big advantage of smooth moves is that is requires a significantly lower peak power which means machines can be designed with lower cost components.

- but stopping the motion does offer added power in TT at my level anyways.

No.  You have no justification or proof for this statement.   I can provide plenty of proof that smooth motion is more efficient but I doubt few could understand the math.  Baal may be able too.  Larry Bavley, Heavyspin, can.

Isn't the recent video of Schlager showing the kid how to move smoothly good enough?
 

jrscatman wrote: I am interested in learning more about this subject - would you be able to provide a link to the proof?

The question I have is how good is your knowledge of physics and math?  I find it hard to make a case when no one understands physics or the math required to understand physics.  Most don't know the definition of power and neither does that badminton player.

It maybe more efficient to try to get somebody like Larry Bavly or perhaps Ben Bednarz to verify my math.  Larry Bavly or Heavyspin has more TT creds than I do and I think he knows a lot about math because he likes a lot of advanced math topics on YouTube. Ben has told me he has a PhD in physics but if so he has been very silent when it comes to physics topics on this forum.

However, this I can assure you right off the top of my head because I have come across these problems so many times.

The only thing that matters to the speed after impact is  the speed of impact not the time it takes to accelerate to the speed.  That badminton 'expert' could make his stroke over 50ms or 100ms and the results would still be the same if the speed at impact is the same.   This means the pause makes no difference.

If you accelerate something from the same starting speed to the same ending speed it will take the same amount of energy.   However,  if you accelerate in a short time it will take more power.  I consider this to be a "well duh" sort of information.   Any racer can tell you that.

When making a point to point move the power goes up with the inverse of the time cubed and that is if everything else is perfect.  This means if you move from point A to point B in 0.5 seconds it will take 8 times the power it takes to move from point A to point B in 1 second.  This is because it take energy or power to stop a mass that is moving.  This point was correctly made early on but the magnitude of the power requirements was not.  The power requirements stump many.  Often I/we get a system to work and the first thing the customer wants is to go 5% or 10% faster not realizing that going 5% faster requires 1.05^3 times more or almost 16% more power.

What I don't believe, actually know for a fact,  is that pausing for 10 milliseconds or 20 milliseconds is going to make any difference in ones ability to accelerate the paddle over one stroke when a paddle weighs so little.   I do agree it will make a difference over time because there will be more stress on the muscles and more energy will be expended.

My broken wrist is beginning to hurt.

The "stopping" or "step back" or whatever you wanna call it is nothing more than, storing energy and then releasing it by snaping your whole weight like a whiplash transfering weight from your back leg to your front leg and guiding this "stored" energy using your legs waist forearm and wrist. 

It reminds me the situation when you want to have a quick start in your car - first you press the gas pedal to increase engine's RPM and then you suddenly release the clutch (if this applies to manual transmission only, then sorry Americans :P). You probably waste a lot of gasoline(and power) during this preparation phase , but overall it does its job. I can imagine  that with a bit of practice you can also store this energy in your muscles for the sudden release (you need it at the exact time when the ball has reached your striking zone) , but personally I don't see much use for this concept in TT, because I'm always restraining myself anyway. Still, an interesting idea.