Heavy Bottom spin opponent.

keven702 wrote: I see merits in both argument. But I would have to go for Rack's advice. I think PONG's advice would have been good a few months earlier and would have saved me some time in learning , but I have advanced past that stage of not know what angle I put my bat (of course there are times I'm uncertain but I would say most of the time I know). And I've heard about  using your legs in lifting up the ball from many sources but I didn't think it was such a vital part for lifting the bottomspin ball

I guarantee you that incorpating a more full body stroke will not alone solve your problem.    The basic concept of looping backspin is that you aim the ball high with paddle angle to get it over  the net.   If you have provided insufficient topspin, the ball will go long (unless the ball is above the net, in which case  you can just hit.).  But if the problem is  insufficent  topspin, your balls should go long with some frequency.

You can tell us, do your shots have much arc?  This is all the full body stroke will provide you.  You must still angle the bat correctly.

You do not "lift the ball".  I challenge anyone to show me a youtube video where the ball leaves that bat at a significantly different height than the initial contact point.  This simply does not happen and the term "lift" misleading suggests that it does.  What you do provide is the upward vector, which is most certainly a  function of paddle angle.  So you angle the ball above the net, and topspin pulls it back down. 

There are two possiblities:

 1. His shots have sufficient arc, and he is holding the bat at the wrong angle so the ball goes into the net nearly every time. 
2. He does not have sufficient arc to loop heavy backspin balls.  In this case, I suggest that he is not ready to attempt looping heavy backspin balls.  He needs to take balls off the top of the bounce and hit them with modest topspin and give the loop time to develop.

[I can see where the term "lift" developed.  As when your bat is angled up, you give it more of an upward vector by moving the bat upward more quickly.  Still, lift is a misleading term.  Like this other thread, http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31437&KW= , you can justify your explanations with complicated semantic arguments, but the truth is that "lift" is a misleading description that we would be better off without]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BirfeFuFAA&feature=related... ball leaving the blade MUCH higher than his contact point then arcing back down.  Just a simple high arc loop vs underspin.  And look at his blade... is it open facing upwards?  Nope...

LOL... answer this.  Is his blade open and facing upwards as you say to get that vector?  You say we're all using stupid complicated explainations when we say to use your body.  Now you're coming in with upward vectors and stuff.  Now who's getting complicated?  I don't know one coach who tells his student to... oh use an upward VECTOR to return a underspin ball.  Try explaining that to a little kid who doesn't even know what a vector is.

LOL you can clearly see his blade angle is not pointing upwards as you say.  Stop trying to sidestep the question.  First you say you slowed it down and you can see it left at the same height (when you clearly see the ball arcing much higher).  Now you say you need a side view to confirm?  Clearly a contradiction there.

LOL omg.  You think a normal 8th grader would know physics and vectors?  Really?  Name me one coach that explains table tennis strokes in vectors because I've seen and met a ton and I've sure as hell never seen one.  I've seen them say bend down and use your legs.  You mention vectors to a lil kid and they'll respond with a puzzle face of WTF are you talking about.

Now heres a challenge for you Pong... now you show us one youtube video of one top 10 pro... looping a normal underspin push with a open bladeface pointing upwards as a PRACTICAL shot in a match that results in a low arching loop and not a completely high lob shot which is suitable for a player to learn as his primary way of dealing with underspin.

Nice Vid Thai... another great display of someone not use a open bladeface pointing upwards.  He uses a 90 degree blade face with with his stroke going upwards due to it being Japanese rubber.  Some of his drives even use a closed 60 degreeish bladeface... again nothing of the sort that Pong is suggesting with a bladeface facing upwards and lobbing it back.

ZingyDNA wrote: I'm pretty sure you can loop backspin with a blade angle more open than 90 degrees? It's just that we don't do it because we don't play against backspin that heavy...�

Of course, it has much to do with the initial height of the ball. If the ball is above the net (as in Thai's video) you obviously can hit it hard and keep the blade angled at 90 degrees or even angled down a bit.

None of these things factors are independent of the rest. If you hit it harder (ball above of net), you need the bat angled more downward as the backspin induced downward vector is made insignificant by the much larger forward vector.

And for looping a ball far below the table you are going to angle upward, often even against topspin.

But the truth is that regardless of how weak the topspin or slow the hit, you could have avoided the net with the appropriate angle. And you 100% do not "lift the ball" to get it over the net.

Rack wrote: Pong is suggesting thats the�primary shot that should be performed calling people who disagree

No. I suggested that every time the ball goes into the net, that this could have been avoided with a different bat angle. Not necessarily upward, but more upward (less downward) than whatever is putting the ball into the net.

I actually prefer (as most do) to take the ball while it is above the net and use an approximately 90 angle.

My point of contention is the misconception that the loop stroke has 1000 times more dwell than it really has, to the extent that you can lift the ball up a few inches during the contact. This does not happen. I was discussing an upward bat angle in response to the notion of "lift", as this is obviously only needed for balls below net height.

Anyway, I apologize for the confrontational manner of posts.

Rack wrote: ]Even if the ball is above the net... with H3 you can hit it at 90 degrees and still get it in.� If the ball is under the table, if using H3, you can use the dwell time of the tacky topsheet to carry it back up using your wrist also at 90 degrees.� If advanced enough, you can even carry it back up with a closed blade... my coach can do it no problem.� And yes, in that case you are lifting it back up.� How else would the ball get over the net if you don't lift it up using a 90 degree angle.� It doesn't magically make it over.� You grip the ball in the sponge and spin it back up and over with your wrist using the combo of sponge and topsheet to carry it where you want to go.� Of course the shot will be weak since its a safety... but just telling you that no you don't have to open your blade face up and shovel it back using a lob.� Even Ma Lin has done this plenty of times when he's out of position.

I think that we have clarified that this is the point of disagreement. I do not believe that this phenomena exists to a significant extent. How many inches do you believe that you can lift the ball during the dwell?

I claim that we return balls that are below net height by utilizing an arc-like trajectory, not by first lifting the ball and then allowing it to shot off from a position above the net.

I am too lazy to gather photographic evidence. I will either let you win this argument or wait for others to back me up.

Rack wrote: You're advocating that you should be using a open upwards facing blade face to arc�the ball�over as a primary shot.� I'm saying you dont.�

I am done arguing, but will continue to respond when you put words in my mouth that I never said.

I said that when the ball goes into the net, that it would not have went into the net if the bat had been angled differently. A beginner cant suddenly use perfect loops with godly amounts of topspin. But he can angle his bat differently and immediately every ball will no longer be going into the net. And even once you become a great player, you will often be out of position and forced to return the ball with less than godly amounts of topspin, and you need that more fundamental skill of angling the bat correctly to pull off your improvised return.

I tried briefly to disprove the concept of lift with photographs but found that the videos posted on youtube were not produced with the appropriate frame rate and camera angles for such use. Furthermore, the event is not all that common (loop from below the table) because this is a weaker shot than attacking the ball while it is high.

I feel that my arguments are simple and quite obviously true to the extent that I feel little reason to provide further evidence. Apparently these ideas are not simple and obvious for those who feel that the concept of vectors is complicated.

Can we not assume I'm a beginner and just tell me how YOU would approach a underspin ball? I find PONG's technique simple and obvious. Of course I am able to return the ball over the net but I am looking for  more formidable return in which it would be hard for my opponent to return. You are basically saying any shot can be avoided from put into the net, which of course is obvious. But you make it seem as though the only way to put it over is with a open bat, which simply isn't true. There are a NUMEROUS factors and bat angles that would allow you to put the ball over the net but we don't mention them. I can say 'Hit the ball with the handle of your bat and make it over' but that doesn't make it practical or a good shot.
There are only a few ways that you can return the ball and put your opponent out of position. In almost every sport , you always want to put your opponent out of position so you can win the point
(Just alittle pointer if you didn't already know.)


You may know vectors but it seem as though you do not know strategy.  Which seems quite simple and obvious... to me anyways

Hey sorry I meant when his serves and pushes are long. Sorry I just notice I forgot to on my first post 

Fruit loop wrote: ZingyDNA wrote: Rack wrote: He uses a 90 degree blade face with with his stroke going upwards due to it being Japanese rubber.  I'm pretty sure you can loop backspin with a blade angle more open than 90 degrees? It's just that we don't do it because we don't play against backspin that heavy...  I'm 99% sure that the amount of spin that would require is not possible with a 40mm ball. I don't think i would ever have looped a ball past an 80 degree angle. (against long pimple chopper, back and forth.) I have a quite spinny loop.