Concave vs. Convex Loop (Which is which/better?)

Sorry, but when I read "concave" vs "convex" loop, I am immediately terrified that "person" is back with haunting threads.....   

All of you know who I meant......

Sorry King_Pong, for the irrelevant reply....


Edited by doraemon - 06/21/2012 at 3:50am

kenneyy88 wrote: I don't think many pros do any of these anymore. Closest thing is like Ma long swinging up, then on followthrough he closes the racket face.

Depends on your equipment and physical attributes. The CNT members all use slightly different body mechanics. The only person that can answer your question is yourself. Try out both concave and convex and decide which one you like better. 

zeio wrote: This is in fact a legit topic worth digging for. The Japanese magazine 桌球王国 World Table Tennis has published articles regarding the differences in the loop stroke when playing tacky and grippy rubbers. It is claimed that the grazing loop stroke is more suited for tacky rubbers, whereas the hitting loop stroke is suitable for high tension or tensor rubbers. A picture of Wang Liqin pulling off a loopkill is even included. Parts of those articles have been in wide circulation among various forums. http://www.pingpang.info/bbs/dispbbs.asp?id=215087&authorid=83433&boardid=2 http://www.pingpang.info/bbs/TopicOther.asp?t=5&BoardID=235&id=201008 http://sundns.org/discuZ/viewthread.php?action=printable&tid=266525

I think the concave and convex trajectories occur naturally --- the more you swing forward and less upward, the more convex ("positive" arc in the article Leshxa referenced) your swing is; and the more you swing upward and less forward the more concave ("negative" arc) your swing is.

zeio wrote: It is claimed that the grazing loop stroke is more suited for tacky rubbers, whereas the hitting loop stroke is suitable for high tension or tensor rubbers.

king_pong wrote: zeio wrote: This is in fact a legit topic worth digging for. The Japanese magazine 桌球王国 World Table Tennis has published articles regarding the differences in the loop stroke when playing tacky and grippy rubbers. It is claimed that the grazing loop stroke is more suited for tacky rubbers, whereas the hitting loop stroke is suitable for high tension or tensor rubbers. A picture of Wang Liqin pulling off a loopkill is even included. Parts of those articles have been in wide circulation among various forums. http://www.pingpang.info/bbs/dispbbs.asp?id=215087&authorid=83433&boardid=2 http://www.pingpang.info/bbs/TopicOther.asp?t=5&BoardID=235&id=201008 http://sundns.org/discuZ/viewthread.php?action=printable&tid=266525 That's great, but what do these threads say?  I saw in the last one that it appeared that they were addressing the issue of blade angle during the stroke (either closing or opening).  It appeared that they were implying that the closing-stroke made a lower trajectory, but I couldn't read the text.  Can you translate?

For a start, the first two threads are reviews done by a renowned reviewer from Taiwan under the name of 桂花田.  He often cites material from that magazine to support his assertions.  While I find most of those insights informative, certain portrayals within those articles are exaggerated and hence not representative of what is really taking place in reality.  The picture in which the lady demonstrates the service motion where the ball literally rolls over the rubber from end to end is one such depiction, as opposed to this real-world example.

The last one is about how the thread starter feels the European stranglehold on the forehand loop stroke is ruined at the hands of the current crop of loopers, e.g. Boll, Maze etc.  He uses the tacky/grippy image to help illustrate that their having the blade face parallel with the endline of the table as the root cause of poor power and jerky transition, as opposed to the angled contact of the Chinese, when seen from the side.  Yet, the picture of Wang Liqin's loopkill clearly shows otherwise.  What the OP fails to take into account is the fact that different situations call for different strokes.  Shot placement, contact point, body stance and so on all have an effect on one's swing.

king_pong wrote: racquetsforsale wrote: zeio wrote: It is claimed that the grazing loop stroke is more suited for tacky rubbers, whereas the hitting loop stroke is suitable for high tension or tensor rubbers.    This seems to go against the perception that most Chinese players drive or hit through the ball more than their European counterparts when looping. Even a famous Chinese coach has stated the same thing. I think the statement is correct -- that it is easier to get a blistering brush-loop with tacky rubber, while bouncy-grippy rubber more easily facilitates a loop-drive -- but since it is possible to do either with either rubber, the CNT has discovered that driving with their harder-tackier rubber is, for some reason, better than the traditional brush-looping.  Perhaps it is the arc that it produces, outlined in the article that Lexsha posted above -- http://protabletennis.net/content/mechanics-table-tennis.

I can understand where racquetsforsale is coming from.  Liu Guozheng has been quoted for commenting on Chen Qi having more of a wrapping motion than other players, yet he happens to generate more power than would have been thought possible.


Edited by zeio - 06/22/2012 at 12:47pm

I may be wrong but it seems to me that the the curve of the stroke, and the relatively closed or open paddle condition, is largely determined by where the ball is taken off the bounce. 

Edited by V-Griper - 06/22/2012 at 2:16pm

racquetsforsale wrote: This is what I'm referring to: Wu Jing Ping on the FH; at the end of the article, he mentions that Chinese players tend to brush more because they use tacky rubbers, as opposed to their European counterparts who drive more with their grippy and elastic rubbers. http://www.mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33003&PN=1&title=national-coach-wu-jingping-on-chinese-fh

Wu Jingping's article, at the time of writing(2005 as indicated by one source), did point out that the forehand loop of Chinese penholders lacked power, a trait common among players owing to the short-pips hitter style.  And so he had made it a first priority and had forced Wang Hao and Ma Lin to practice hitting harder.

The notion that the Chinese hit harder probably first took root a decade ago along with Wang Liqin's first claim of the WTTC title.  Duan Xiang(段翔), deputy director of R&D of the CTTA, uses the term "扭轉爆發鞭沖技術(Rotation-induced Explosion Whip-like [Forward"> Loop Technique, literally)" to separate Wang Liqin's forehand loop from the rest whom he describes as "加速制動擺沖技術(Acceleration-Braking Pendulum-like [Forward] Loop Technique)".  The latter is likely an extension to the term "加速制動(Acceleration-Braking)", first coined by Zhuang Zedong, who takes a minimalistic approach to stroke mechanics where great emphasis is placed on maximizing acceleration before contact and brakes to a halt as soon as the ball takes off to reduce the time of recovery.  According to Duan's words, what sets Wang Liqin apart is the unique[at that time] kinetic chain he uses to harness the rotational kinetic energy by coupling the arm, waist, crotch and so on.


Edited by zeio - 06/23/2012 at 8:48am

V-Griper wrote: I may be wrong but it seems to me that the the curve of the stroke, and the relatively closed or open paddle condition, is largely determined by where the ball is taken off the bounce.  If you take the ball early, anywhere up to, and including, slightly after TOB (top of bounce) and the ball is above net height, I think it would be preferable to have "positive" arc loop stroke and emphasize a relatively closed paddle face. It also facilitates over the table looping.  If the ball is taken much after TOB and below net height it would then be preferable to use the "negative" arc loop stroke with a more open paddle face. The arc of the ball as it descends requires a more vertical "lifting" action. Also, of course, when you are stroking underspin. Of course each individuals adjustment is different. Examples- Positive arc Negative arc

A famous English dude figured this out in 1696 :-)

bluebucket wrote: There is no such thing as a convex or concave loop, if you have the spare time and muscles to make that shape movement when looping you are simply doing it wrong.

pnachtwey wrote: I also know that the ball doesn't care about the stroke leading up to and after impact.  Only the attitude and rate of change in attitude of the paddle make a difference as well as the stoke and rate of change in the stroke directions DURING the stroke make a difference.

I understand what you are saying, I think...

But why then does followthrough make so much difference in consistency, power and placement of a stroke?

For example:
Takie a mid distance BH topspin, with the backswing from the hip, rotation from the leading shoulder, and uncoiling of the core while contacting the ball in front into a big followthrough that ends with the arm high, out to the right (assuming right handed)...

Why does the larger arc (relative to a smaller backswing and smaller followthrough) require less adjustment against incoming spin?

In other words, why do bigger mechanics seem to ignore incoming spin more than smaller mechanics?

Is it because there is a larger section of the arc where a "reasonably good shot" is possible?

icontek wrote: pnachtwey wrote: I also know that the ball doesn't care about the stroke leading up to and after impact.  Only the attitude and rate of change in attitude of the paddle make a difference as well as the stoke and rate of change in the stroke directions DURING the stroke make a difference.   I understand what you are saying, I think... But why then does followthrough make so much difference in consistency, power and placement of a stroke?