Critique form - FH loop

ghostzen wrote: Tinykin wrote: You guys do realise that the OP, having played Belgian 2/1 league, is minimum 2150 and more than likely >2250. I also read that bit ...... did wonder if everyone else did. "In Belgium you have a "super" division followed by first and second league nationwide. I played second league for 10 years and first league for 1 year" The OP prob holds a decent C ranking or maybe higher which makes him a pretty handy player. Guessing there are a few match videos around for us to get a better idea of OP's play. My ranking in Belgium is B2 and my ELO points hoover around 2200. I have no idea how that relates to US standards or other countries. And honestly I don't care. I'm looking to improve my play. I will post a video later with match play. After a month without training endurance is improving again. I am paying a lot of attention to the elbow now and I have to say it is not sore the day after a good training. There is one vid on youtube featuring a bad performance but it dates 5 years back.

Do you still play with that stance like you did five years ago?  That's seriously crippling both wings.

cmetsbeltran15 wrote: NextLevel wrote: Oh, by the way, medical advice should be evaluated not by demonstrating it has worked on one's health or the health of those someone has treated. It should be evaluated based on what has been written. Sorry, but that is patently ridiculous. People who feel strongly about dispensing advice should at least give evidence of their rating or success - maybe videotape goes too far but it is better than anything else. Someone asking for advice is putting themselves in the position of a patient and they should at least Know the doctor's qualification. It doesn't guarantee accurate diagnosis or treatment but it is far better than the alternatives, which include having players who have never taught others or themselves how to loop giving to all kinds of intelligent sounding advice that never gets to the heart of the matter. This leads to a few interesting questions - do you think that you need to be a successful player in order to be a good coach? Are there very few examples of great coaches who were not successful players? Since Tk5 provided his rating which indicates many levels above most posters here, is he now the most qualified to comment on this thread?

Depends on what you mean by successful player. But I have seen relatively successful coaches who weren't players at the level of their students so the answer is no if I think I understand what you are saying.  Of course, some people like to debate the question of whether those players got better because of the coaching or whether because through tournament play, the students learned things apart from coaching.  While the answer is always a mix of both, I think in the particular cases I am familiar with, my opinion is that the coaches had a lot to do with it, both the students' strengths and weaknesses.

The question is what insight one has on the problem and how one acquired it. Some lower rated players developed these insights by either hanging around higher level players for a long time or by studying higher level players. But then the proof is what they have developed. It is easy to say what a problem is sometimes, but a real coach has to fix the problem and sometimes has to get creative to do so. In doing so, the coach learns things about human learning that enables him to think more critically about the issue.

So it is helpful if a coach working with a student has either achieved that goal level, worked with coaches who have helped students achieve that goal level, or has students who have achieved that goal level. It can take years to build a decent table tennis player and it is easy to pretend that these fixes are easy. People who appreciate the issues involved tend to be the kinds of people described above. In the special case of adult beginners, I go further and argue that the coach should have either mostly learned as an adult or had success helping adults learn. The issues faced are different.

Those are my positions based on my experience. For the record, I thought Tk5
ave the most succinct and insightful advice though I suspect that Wilkinru did such a good job using TTEdge insights that there was really little detail left to add. If you fix your wrist as much as the OP does, it is hard to generate racket head speed to match the really tough balls at your level. That was the biggest area for immediate improvement, IMO, without revamping the technique completely. So my suggestion would have been for OP to just relax his lower arm and wrist, and rebuild his use of those elements on this stroke. For a longer term project, just do what wilkinru said.

As a side story, I heard from a friend about a top US player who loops like OP but teaches his students a different looping style, more similar to what TTEdge/ Brett teaches. Just to point out that you can be a good player but dislike certain aspects of your technique.

Edited by NextLevel - 07/16/2015 at 10:03am

NextLevel wrote: cmetsbeltran15 wrote: NextLevel wrote: Oh, by the way, medical advice should be evaluated not by demonstrating it has worked on one's health or the health of those someone has treated. It should be evaluated based on what has been written. Sorry, but that is patently ridiculous. People who feel strongly about dispensing advice should at least give evidence of their rating or success - maybe videotape goes too far but it is better than anything else. Someone asking for advice is putting themselves in the position of a patient and they should at least Know the doctor's qualification. It doesn't guarantee accurate diagnosis or treatment but it is far better than the alternatives, which include having players who have never taught others or themselves how to loop giving to all kinds of intelligent sounding advice that never gets to the heart of the matter. This leads to a few interesting questions - do you think that you need to be a successful player in order to be a good coach? Are there very few examples of great coaches who were not successful players? Since Tk5 provided his rating which indicates many levels above most posters here, is he now the most qualified to comment on this thread? Depends on what you mean by successful player. But I have seen relatively successful coaches who weren't players at the level of their students so the answer is no if I think I understand what you are saying.  Of course, some people like to debate the question of whether those players got better because of the coaching or whether because through tournament play, the students learned things apart from coaching.  While the answer is always a mix of both, I think in the particular cases I am familiar with, my opinion is that the coaches had a lot to do with it, both the students' strengths and weaknesses. The question is what insight one has on the problem and how one acquired it. Some lower rated players developed these insights by either hanging around higher level players for a long time or by studying higher level players. But then the proof is what they have developed. It is easy to say what a problem is sometimes, but a real coach has to fix the problem and sometimes has to get creative to do so. In doing so, the coach learns things about human learning that enables him to think more critically about the issue. So it is helpful if a coach working with a student has either achieved that goal level, worked with coaches who have helped students achieve that goal level, or has students who have achieved that goal level. It can take years to build a decent table tennis player and it is easy to pretend that these fixes are easy. People who appreciate the issues involved tend to be the kinds of people described above. In the special case of adult beginners, I go further and argue that the coach should have either mostly learned as an adult or had success helping adults learn. The issues faced are different. Those are my positions based on my experience. For the record, I thought Tk5 ave the most succinct and insightful advice though I suspect that Wilkinru did such a good job using TTEdge insights that there was really little detail left to add. If you fix your wrist as much as the OP does, it is hard to generate racket head speed to match the really tough balls at your level. That was the biggest area for immediate improvement, IMO, without revamping the technique completely. So my suggestion would have been for OP to just relax his lower arm and wrist, and rebuild his use of those elements on this stroke. For a longer term project, just do what wilkinru said. As a side story, I heard from a friend about a top US player who loops like OP but teaches his students a different looping style, more similar to what TTEdge/ Brett teaches. Just to point out that you can be a good player but dislike certain aspects of your technique.

Good points.

I'm probably gonna catch some flak for this, but I actually believe that low-level players who hang around high-level players talking about their own (2500+) games are not qualified to be apply that to their coaching. If those high level players are giving advice pertinent to the low-level players game, that's another story. What sucks is when you have some noob who talks to and analyzes pros and tries to implement it into his and others', say, 1400 games. Unfortunately, this runs pretty rampant in this forum (and sport) and I'm sure everyone knows "that guy" at their club who is 1400 and has the latest superboosted H3 on special weight/model blade for their SICKNASTY high-toss reverse pendulum inside-out disguised heavy sidespin serves and Ma Long forehand counterloops. People cannot really understand the complexities of the game if they haven't dealt first-hand with that level. I see a lot of domineering parents of high-level kids trying to coach (tactically, not just motivating) in tournaments, parents who have never picked a racket up. What makes them think they know what they're talking about, because they sat in on a few lessons?

Non-players who become good coaches do so by analyzing and learning how to coach at amateur, then advanced, then pro play. Examples of this like Gregg Popovich of the Spurs are rare, but in any of these cases, you see that their coaching career followed a progression from amateur to high level.

In summary, I basically agree with what you're saying. Basically, people need to stay in their lane. Know what level you are capable of understanding and stick to coaching that, and you are doing good. But people who have been playing for two years and then comment on Pro Tour videos saying "oh X lost because he didn't do Y enough or exploit Z" are the worst. It's not that simple, there are way more complexities about why he could or couldn't do certain things, that none of us are capable of understanding. End rant.




Edited by cmetsbeltran15 - 07/16/2015 at 10:33am

cmetsbeltran15 wrote: Good points. I'm probably gonna catch some flak for this, but I actually believe that low-level players who hang around high-level players talking about their own (2500+) games are not qualified to be apply that to their coaching. If those high level players are giving advice pertinent to the low-level players game, that's another story. What sucks is when you have some noob who talks to and analyzes pros and tries to implement it into his and others', say, 1400 games. Unfortunately, this runs pretty rampant in this forum (and sport) and I'm sure everyone knows "that guy" at their club who is 1400 and has the latest superboosted H3 on special weight/model blade for their SICKNASTY high-toss reverse pendulum inside-out disguised heavy sidespin serves and Ma Long forehand counterloops. People cannot really understand the complexities of the game if they haven't dealt first-hand with that level. I see a lot of domineering parents of high-level kids trying to coach (tactically, not just motivating) in tournaments, parents who have never picked a racket up. What makes them think they know what they're talking about, because they sat in on a few lessons? Non-players who become good coaches do so by analyzing and learning how to coach at amateur, then advanced, then pro play. Examples of this like Gregg Popovich of the Spurs are rare, but in any of these cases, you see that their coaching career followed a progression from amateur to high level. In summary, I basically agree with what you're saying. Basically, people need to stay in their lane. Know what level you are capable of understanding and stick to coaching that, and you are doing good. But people who have been playing for two years and then comment on Pro Tour videos saying "oh X lost because he didn't do Y enough or exploit Z" are the worst. It's not that simple, there are way more complexities about why he could or couldn't do certain things, that none of us are capable of understanding. End rant.

The secret of good coaching is to understand why,I can honestly say I can explain in great detail every aspect of any advice I give,if I don't understand it fully, I don't coach it, its often not text book either. Bad coaching often manifests as a 'one size fits all' text book approach.
Superior players have the advantage of time over their opponents, they read the game, read their opponents intentions, exploit their weaknesses and impose their own strokes with time to spare. You can't coach that unless you know what it is, which is why far too many player/coaches think the answers are always found in technique.
If a coach can't explain why Eric Boggan is a good player, he shouldn't be coaching.

NextLevel wrote: Baal wrote: This thread is a case study in why you better have a really thick skin if you post video of yourself playing.  I am amazed at people who think they can infer so much from a video of a guy hitting forehands from position 1 against a robot.  Baal, you coach, don't you?  You also wrote this: Baal wrote: Looks pretty damned good to me. So how did you infer that it was pretty damn good? Everyone has a model for what a stroke should look like and this is supposed to be OP's basic forehand topspin, even if against a robot.  So you look at the stroke, compare it against your model and form your own conclusions, right or wrong.  Of course, it might be an effective stroke during a match, and it might change, but we have been presented with OP's basic FH topspin and asked to say what he can do to improve it.  If you work out of the position that the forehand is largely one stroke with subtle changes to attack other balls, then you try to see what in this stroke as a basic stroke could be an issue, and let the OP decide based on what he has heard or seen. Again, the conclusions can be wrong or may be informed by better evidence but the OP is a high enough level player to think through it based on what people have told him.

Valid point. 

My comment referred to only the things he was showing on that video.  I actually looked at how he moved his feet more than how he moved his arm.  I considered the strong likelihood that the camera's presence was making him play stiffly.  I also noticed early on where and how long he has played.  The shots he was showing are not that relevant to the issues he says he has, so I for one feel limited to say much, that is the main point for me. 

Sure, his stroke is not the same as an elite professional.  I know a lot of really good players like that.  I am not all that sure even how representative it is of his own stroke as it would show up in free play.  his "real forehand" might be better or might be worse. 

I am increasingly convinced that a lot of advice is anti-zen and therefore really hard to implement, especially in adults.

A little long but totally appropriate.

Vgriper, great video.

I think Zen table tennis is when you have pathways that kick in like in this video. The goal eventually is to do it the right way without thinking. The key is the words "right way". It is hard to change a suboptimal stroke that is engrained.   So how to know when to try to change it and when to luve with it and try to get better with what you have?

"Basically during your backswing, you move your shoulder blade backwards (your elbow will be tucked near your right middle back, kinda like doing dumbbell rows) and let it explode forward during your swing.'

Baal wrote: Vgriper, great video. I think Zen table tennis is when you have pathways that kick in like in this video. The goal eventually is to do it the right way without thinking. The key is the words "right way". It is hard to change a suboptimal stroke that is engrained.   So how to know when to try to change it and when to luve with it and try to get better with what you have?

This is the arm mechanic for the forehand topspin I learned.  I personally find it very easy to teach to anyone who doesn't have strong preconceptions about how the forehand topspin should work.  It's the people who do that give me nightmares because an arm motion this natural is quite easy to mimic, even if you don't want to use it in matches.

If there is one thing I've learned - it's watch yourself in video in training and in a match!
In the OPs video we could see quite a bit that could be better. To really improve the stroke it will take a lot of hard work. Just chip away at it and improve it. He knows there is an issue with it, hence the post!

I recorded a match of mine recently. Gosh I'm entirely ashamed to admit I am not bending my knees even close to enough or what I thought I was. This last week has been nothing except squats and similar exercises. It's funny to learn the very best thing I can do to improve is fitness related - not my strokes/serve/return (which is what I thought I would be doing the analysis on).

With the OP - he can work on the bouncing and trying hard to extend the arm a little more. Doesn't need to start over. Fitness seems to be there. Who knows about the rest of his game - he could be 2300 but this loop when moving could be holding him back for all I know!

The great thing about practice matches is that you can try things out. So he can really focus himself on not bouncing for a match. Or try to go for the forehand loop with an extended arm when he has time (perhaps against a lesser skilled player).

At the US Open last week I saw a ton of players who were better than the best player in my city. I certainly would not be qualified to coach them. However I might be able to provide a little information on stroke mechanics as I have studied this as much as possible. Just depends on if there is even a flaw (to my eyes).

Also I have very little idea what the pros are doing out there. I can watch a pro player's match and just assume no one will ever beat them - until the next youtube video. The skills at the top 20 are mind boggling.

So in the end, table tennis is just a MMORPG that you play with your body. You level up in a certain aspect, only to find that some other skill is no longer quite good enough - and then you level that part up. You either accept your skill level or continue to improve.