http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOuW82emc0U" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOuW82emc0U

I think it's the same principle behind archery - where they draw the bow and hold it - they don't release it right away - don't know the physics - but time to do some research I guess. 

I will try it on TT tonight see if I can apply it.

Old way:

New way:

Here are some examples from other sports.

Baseball swing

Golf swing

The concept of lag is an important one imo. It is really hard to see in tt but the easiest place to see it is in the arms and wrist. However their is also a slight lag in the torso. 

Some TT examples. 

Timo forehand- his lag/whip is very noticeable at the elbow as it rotates in first then the forearm then the whip crack at the wrist.

Wang Li Qin forehand- Look to the arm again however their is much less bend at the elbow. The lack of bend or the so called straight arm loop has been a source of debate but I do not see the CHN going to a more bent arm. YA being the exception but not the rule. See FZD.

Ma Lin forehand- Same 

Ma Long FH/BH- look to the wrist on the backhand but you also need to look at his legl/torso. You can see him make a motion like his is starting to sit down in a chair then suddenly decides to stand up again. That motion slightly precedes the the upper torso, arm and wrist.

Zhang Jike backhand- You can look to his upper back. Does a sort of body roll with his upper back to help produce a whip like motion then transmits that to his arm, wrist, blade.

Just for fun here is a dance clip- She is not trying to transmit any force to an object so it's not quite the same, just trying to illustrate propagating a wave through the body.

Another thing mentioned by the badminton coach (Dr. Lee Jae Bok) was hitting and pulling back - he said this gives more power than moving through the shuttle - I'll try and find the video. I thought this was also interesting and counter intuitive.

The pulling back after impact doesn't help with the  speed either.

Tried this and it adds power. Makes a big difference.

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! If one attempts to reverse a backswing too fast (continuously, without any sense that it has come to a stop - however short) the energy on the way forward will be lessened because too much energy will be expended in the reversal. 

An example: You're at a carnival trying to ring the bell. Imagine swinging that very heavy sledgehammer over your head and bringing it down without the slightest delay. That's all it takes to sense the extra energy required.

  

If one attempts to reverse a backswing too fast (continuously, without any sense that it has come to a stop - however short) the energy on the way forward will be lessened because too much energy will be expended in the reversal.

What?  You are talking as if one stroke is going to max our our energy.  Where is your proof?

An example: You're at a carnival trying to ring the bell. Imagine swinging that very heavy sledgehammer over your head and bringing it down without the slightest delay. That's all it takes to sense the extra energy required.

Again you assume we are energy limited.

It should be said that all good athletes instinctively know how to use their bodies in the more efficient manner (the stop before the reversal...however short!), because the differences are easily felt. This is merely the physical explanation for it, for those interested.

You assume there is time to stop.   Look at the recent Schlager video where shows a kid smooth motion without stopping.

It is obvious you don't know the difference between energy and power.
The old significant thing to having more speed after impact is the racquet or paddle speed at impact if mass and incoming speed is constant.



[/QUOTE]

-------------
Samsonov Alpha+H3 Neo+802 1.5mm, the Ball Whacker is revived!<br />Samsonov Alpha+H3 Neo+802-40 1.8mm my back up<br />BCX5+H3+802-1 1.8mm New but promising.<br />

What we're talking about is the degree to which energy is wasted in overcoming too abrupt a changeover. Energy that could be going into the forward motion has been used to halt the backward motion. 

Example: A baseball infielder or a quarterback making a hurried toss can still snap the ball off pretty good, but not as fast as when the time pressure is off. 

Example: A hurried table tennis stroke can produce plenty of speed, but not as much as when the time pressure is off. 

Now, understand, I'm talking about the same length backswings in these examples. When the time pressure is off, the transition (changing the direction from back to forth) is more drawn out and capable of producing more forward power (or energy...same thing).

If you are running a race in this direction <, will you be able to take off faster from a still start, or when you are going this way > and have to reverse yourself in this direction < with what seems like a continuous motion?

Last example: You're tossing a very heavy ball, say as heavy as a shot put. Would you go back and forth with your arm in what seems like a continuous motion, or gather yourself at the transition? 

No he doesn't.  If he waited an extra 10 milliseconds would he generate more power?  What about 1 millisecond or 20 milliseconds?  The answer is he would NEED to generate more power because he would need to accelerate the racquet to the same speed in less time to get the same shuttle speed after impact. The energy required would be about the same if the same racquet speed is obtained over different periods of time.  That does not mean the speed after impact is higher.

Another point is the just because one can generate power doesn't mean it is used efficiently.

  

As I said above I personally would rather listen to Schlager about smooth motion as seen in a recent video.  This makes sense.

Now the question is what is meant by power? Most on this forum use the term incorrectly but if it is meant to mean a faster speed after impact then the badminton expert is flat out wrong. The only thing that matters is the racquets and paddle speed at impact.  One can start the swing earlier and accelerate slower but as long as the same racquet speed is obtained the results will be the same. The power required is less but then it is required for a longer time so the energy required will be about the same.

So there is this badminton 'expert' and Schlager that are saying different things.   Choose.  I choose Schlager.

I find various sports offer insights into other sports - badminton has been giving me a lot insights into wrist action. Strangely most of my self taught concepts appear to be incorrect. I always thought smooth consistent motion is the correctway - but stopping the motion does offer added power in TT at my level anyways.

There have been some really good arguments put forth by others in this thread - just need time to digest it and experiment. I guess we will all end up using what works for us. 

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

In badminton the shuttle decreases in momentum rapidly allowing the opportunity more frequently, but also plays a big part in the deceit of depth ( drop shot or power) 

In TT its time dependant, if you have no time, you can't do it, and if the incoming ball has pace and spin, you can 'borrow the power' anyway, modern attacking glue effect rubbers are designed for this, so power coming in means less power needed going out, ie same pace and spin but with a slower arm, leading to greater consistency and accuracy.

The bigger the backswing the more energy stored the more energy released. Any mistake in timing causes unsychronized transfer of energy thus a crappy stroke

Case closed ggthanxbye :)

The most accurate post I have read in here, most of the posters have a misconception of how physics and energy works.

Of course if the ball comes really fast and spinny and you are close to the table its pointless to stop and make a backswing, better borrow the incoming energy and counterhit/block/spin it back.

But adding energy to a dead ball either energy in form of spin or speed or both, needs a "steping back backswing"

When learning a stroke, stoping and backswinging is essential for correct timing as you said and to somehow help your brain to "automate" the stroke.

 It is pretty advanced to hold the backswing whilst moving into position/on to the incoming ball, intermediate players tend to commit to the contact fully and start their swing too early when re-looping away from the table, I always suggest keeping the stroke 'tidy'  and using a 'locked on' guide to timing the stroke, ie start the stroke smoothly and snap late, too many players go for full bat speed from the start of their stroke. Its like trying to swat a fly.

tt4me - thanks for the explanation - but it's much like badminton for me ..... went over my head!

Can I ask this - next time you play - try delaying or holding your stroke and see if you notice a difference. As I mentioned earlier - it made big difference in my stroke. 

I think the explanation above from TTFrenzy makes sense to me as to what might be happening. 

Thanks TTFrenzy - this makes very good sense to me. 

You guys are getting side tracked.

There are times when waiting for the ball is the right thing to do but that is not the point.  The point is that pausing does not add power to the stroke.  You generate power when you make the stroke. Power is required to accelerate a mass which is you and the paddle.

BTW,  I am always thinking wait for it when looping chopped balls, but most of the time is there no time to pause.

Edit, I modified a work sheet that I had that moves an object between two points.   I modified it to plot the power as a function of time and then integrated the power to get the total energy for the move.  I plotted 3 examples,  moving 1 kg 1 meter in 1 second,  moving 1 kg 1 meter in 0.5 seconds and another example moving in 2 seconds.   One can the the peak power required changes with the inverse of the time cubed.  All units are common metric ones. Power is in watts, energy in jules, distance in meters etc.

It doesn't prove anything except that moving from point to point can require a lot of power if done in a short period of time.   Engineering students might want to study it.

The key part is that the power function pwr(t) computes the power by multiplying the mass*acceleration(t)*velocity(t).  During a pause the acceleration and velocity is 0 so there is no power generated during the pause if there is one.   

http://deltamotion.com/peter/Mathcad/Mathcad%20-%20Point2PointPower.pdf" rel="nofollow - http://deltamotion.com/peter/Mathcad/Mathcad%20-%20Point2PointPower.pdf

Now think of this.  If I had to move 1 kg back and forth one meter in 2 seconds would it be more energy efficient to move one meter in 1/2 second and stop for a second the move the back in 1/2 second or would be more efficient to move 1 meter in one second and move back one meter in 1 second with no pause between the moves?

   

Is it a choice between Lee Jae Bok and Schlager? I think not because both of these superior athletes do the same thing. Schlager's showing the youngster how to blend one move into the other says nothing about the topic under discussion, and certainly does not contradict it. 

Neither does the lightness of the TT bat. We can forget about the bat. The question is how fast can you move yourself. And it's more than the weight of your arm. You cannot wind up and return with full power without some sense that your coil has reached a "quiet" spot at transition. This quietness enables you to use the coil that you feel in your body in the manner in which you wish to use it. Without this quietness, the forwardswing comes as a "rebound" resulting in a loss of control and power.

 Assuming there is time, a pause aids timing, good timing is needed to produce efficient power and consistency. If you have more time in the ready position as a ball comes towards you, everything is better, but holding the ready position, is advanced play, a player cannot get himself in to this situation regularly enough unless his footwork and mental game are good enough to back it, everything is connected to something else in TT, its never as simple as black and white.

This isn't the point.  I agree one can hit a much better ball if the opponent gives you time to get a good look at it. However, the thread is about whether a pause helps generate power and it doesn't.

Ok, after reading all the responses in this thread so far - I've convinced myself - it does generate more force. I am not sure about power and how it relates to force - so I'll stick with the term force.

So in my testing - I was rallying like normal - forehand to forehand - I said let me stop the back swing and see what happens - result much harder shot.

Based on what jospher and TTFrenzy's responses from earlier - what is happening according my understanding - the stopping is creating potential energy - which then released in short amount of time - causing quick acceleration. Force is directly proportional to acceleration  - creating a higher force.

Without the pause the arm or the racquet will be in constant velocity (or very low acceleration) resulting in less force.

Let me know if this thinking is flawed. But my testing has convinced me there is more power to be had by pausing the backswing.

Power=force*velocity

Since

force=mass*acceleration

then

If the is no velocity there is no power.

During the pause there is no acceleration so there is no force.

Would you guys trying studying a little instead of making crap up as you go along?

Your myths and ignorance are misleading others and certainly not advancing the sport.

The force I am talking about is at impact with the ball - not when the racquet is paused at the backswing - who cares what the force is back there - it's the force on impact that concerns me!

 I completely agree with the physics, its impact speed and contact angle that matters, some people may be getting confused with different types of stroke generating more power, that has nothing to do with a delay in execution, more with using the dynamics of the stroke to produce whipped power by delaying the arm swing after the leg has pushed forward and the waist rotated, producing a ratchet swing. You can get the same power with a long smooth swing ( Jonyer anyone ?) though. If you want to make a good comparison, there are two sports that project a ball at tremendous speed by use of the arm, Baseball and cricket. A baseball pitcher uses a whipped ratchet motion, a cricket bowler a straight arm slinging action, but they both achieve a very fast point of delivery.

 I completely agree with the physics, its impact speed and contact angle that matters, some people may be getting confused with different types of stroke generating more power, that has nothing to do with a delay in execution, more with using the dynamics of the stroke to produce whipped power by delaying the arm swing after the leg has pushed forward and the waist rotated, producing a ratchet swing. You can get the same power with a long smooth swing ( Jonyer anyone ?) though. If you want to make a good comparison, there are two sports that project a ball at tremendous speed by use of the arm, Baseball and cricket. A baseball pitcher uses a whipped ratchet motion, a cricket bowler a straight arm slinging action, but they both achieve a very fast point of delivery.

The pause has absolutely nothing to do with the force at impact.   The force during impact is the change in momentum of the ball divided by the contact time.  This was covered in the dwell time thread.   Momentum is mass*velocity.   Since the mass of the ball doesn't change only the impact speeds or velocities matter and this is what I have been saying all along.

 

Ok, I see where I'm confused - I use a looped backswing - I am guessing you have straight backswing - in that case there will be an automatic pause. In my case since I have small loop and the racquet is in continuous motion. So, I will have to consciously pause. I modified my backswing thinking it's better to keep the racquet in motion - maybe now I have to back to my original straight backswing.

Ok, momentum - is there such a thing as momentum transfer? so a change momentum of the ball is being caused by the momentum of the racquet? Since momentum is m * v and acceleration is change in velocity - wouldn't the velocity of the racquet be related to the acceleration? higher acceleration will give you higher velocity?

My point is the pause is giving you higher acceleration.

LOL....Funny - I just was thinking that when I read you post.

Very true, it is working for me, I was hoping to understand the physics behind it to see why it was working. Thread helped me to clarify things in my mind - thanks to everyone. Hopefully, others might be able to benefit from it.

Good, I am glad we got that out of the way.

Do you think that pausing adds power to the swing?

what is never clear is whether he has actually improved anyone's game with his "right" advice.

I am just trying to keep people from fouling up their game with bad advice and spreading myths.

Why aren't you?

So don't place as much importance on winning these trivial contests as improving your game. If it works for you, great, the physics be damned!

I thought you are an engineering student.  If so you should know better.

I'm not seeing a stop or pause. A slow down for sure but not a pause. Ideally you don't want to stop intentionally. You want conserve as much momentum as you can. 

Here is an analogy that, hopefully, does not require the math to understand. All though if you wanted to do the math It's relatively easy figure it out.

Let's say you are traveling at 40 kph in your car, a red Honda civic, and you are approaching a stop light. At the stop light in the next lane is a blue Honda civic identical to yours. 100 meters beyond the stop light the two lanes merge into one lane.  As you approach the intersection you notice that the stop light for the cross traffic is turning yellow. The situation becomes instantly clear, in order to have a chance of reaching to the merge before the blue civic you are going to have to go through the intersection carrying as much speed as possible when the light turns green. You know that if you speed up or stay at your current speed you will go through the light when it is still red. Timing becomes critical. You go through the intersection at 20 kph just as the light turns green and both cars go for their respective max accelerations. The blue civic has to overcome all of it's resting inertia and then some to be able to get up enough speed to pass you and get to the merge first. So you easily beat the blue civic to the merge. But more importantly you have done it using much less energy than the blue civic. The slower the red civic is going when it goes through the green light the smaller the margin of victory at the merge and the more energy it takes to achieve that victory. 

 exactly as I see it.

 

The problem is that you aren't a good enough table tennis player.  If you were, then at least we would be confident that the table tennis was sound and the physics was hopefully the same.  Since you aren't, even if we are hopeful the physics is sound, it doesn't make us better players.  So if Coach Hodges gave me a good stroke with a bad physics explanation, he is far more helpful to me than you talking about good physics with what are dubious to incomplete understandings of TT technique.

First: Some of the comments so far are a little undisciplined in that they do not relate to the topic question. And some comments are offered with a decidedly superior tone to them (Like Rafa Nadal says, not nice!).

Lee Jae Bok's demonstration of the badminton smash employs a very effective teaching tactic. His movements are punctuated for emphasis, and, as such, contain some exaggeration. This is done to make the point all the stronger and clearer. Just because we see him continuing backwards after the "stop" does not ruin his demonstration. In an efficient athletic motion, there will be things that are stopped and there will be things that are still going backward when other things have begun to go forward.

Also, there is a long history of people who have misapplied physics in explaining the mechanical actions in a sport. Physics is a high god but some subtleties escape it. We shouldn't underestimate the importance of being good at feeling what we feel.

Every back and forth motion has a stop to it. We can just as well say "pause" because pause is contained in the set "stop". The elliptical motion is not an exception. It still contains a moment when the backward motion has stopped and the forward motion has begun, that is, it contains a "stop". What varies is the duration of this delay.

Now the power explanation: In order to make the maximum use of your coil you must decide when to reverse it. To the extent delay is too short, control and power will be lessened. To get a sense of this, pretend you're throwing a ball, or hitting a table tennis ball (you don't even need a ball or bat, just pretend) and you're going to change backswing to forwardswing as fast as you can.

You might recognize in doing this that the forward swing is rebounding at the transition. When it's rebounding it is not in your control and when it is not in your control you cannot shake out the maximum power.

But all that brings to mind a different twist on the OP question: what if yes, affirmative: momentary stopping before the forward motion helps to execute a better shot, but it really isn't physics but rather it is biology, or even chemistry (or really a complex combination of the three ?) 

I am serious here: we are giving the adiabatic system (an approximation of our body) some extra time to produce energy, and that can make a very decisive difference in the quality and effectiveness of the shot...

Lets talk about the FH topspin. If we have a slow or fast ball no matter what,stopping or pausing DOES NOT affect the power/energy transferred to the ball . 

What does affect transferred energy/power is that when we backswing, we STORE energy in our muscles (stay still 30 seconds in a backswing position of the FH and you will feel the tensed muscles involved) and then release it with the help of gravity
(weight transfer from back leg to front leg) and accelerating  our muscles  (without adding more tension just letting them explode from the backswing --> that is the most efficient & consistent technique for me used by players with relaxed and fluent strokes, Persson,Waldner, Ryu, Samsonov Kong Linghui Wang Hao Oh Sang Eun) and then letting loose to have the quickest return possible to our ready position

So the pause,stop or whatever you wanna call it, helps us with the timing of contact (1 off the bounce, 2 top of the bounce, 3 a falling ball).

p.s. I am talking about an incoming ball that we have enough time to react and take a quality backswing, if the ball is really fast and we dont have enough time to react a smaller motion is needed, but thats a whole different topic to discuss and more complex

if you watch carefully all of the videos, every single player has a very small even for a split of a second "stop" or pause to their backswing. No pause = no correct  timing, it helps the brain to synchronize better with the incoming ball

The pause would be required only the footwork is too fast; v-griper's analogy with the red car approaching the red light is so appropriate.

Bounce with the ball; dance; get into the rhythm; play the opponent, not the ball...are expressions I enjoy to illustrate that idea of using the minimum resources to unload any stroke with a precise idea in mind.

I dont know my friend, I haven reached that quality of footwork yet to have an established opinion. And I never will it takes years and years of multiball practice and tournaments to achieve perfect anticipation and timing

 But watching xu xin who has the most fluent footwork I still see him make a small stop/backswing. He seems to be floating around the ground but if u watch carefully he pauses a bit

Iam a big fan of minum effort-maximum result theory (ur 2nd bold sentence). Bruce Lee was a true master of body physiology 

That is a big assertion.

it helps the brain to synchronize better with the incoming ball

No hard feelings though, everyone has his own personal reasons that make him post in here. Some have clearly psychological factors distrubing their mind.Anyway cheers

P.S. TO JACEKGM : Μy remarks had no intention to insult or downgrade anyone, I read carefully all of the posts and the only one that was scientifically accurate 100% was APW46's Ι think. No intention to be ironic or arrogant towards other users

The only way there would be an actual stop is if the motion were perfectly linear i.e. straight back then straight forward. What I contend is happening at the transition between the back swing and the forward part of the stroke is a small circular or curved path that the blade travels along. I agree that there is a big slowdown relative to the speed of the take back and the forward stroke and that can make it seem as if the hand stops but I am reasonably sure that it is not. It's more of an illusion brought about by the relative speed difference. Even though the paddle and arm are relatively light, completely stopping and start a stroke would take some serious amounts of power relatively speaking. 

In addition if different parts of the body are moving at different rates during the transition how would you define what stops?

The place where things always slow down are at the transitions because their is a big change in direction. There are two main transitions, the end of the take back and the end of the follow through. 

More examples- Every transition has a point where it slows down allot but complete stop even for a micro second isn't happening imo. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

This is a good example. look at the first couple of counter hits. Notice the oval path that the CH stroke travels along then sharpens up as the paddle approaches the transitions. That curved path is used to conserve momentum.

If I am moving and I watch a mountain then I could say the mountain is moving If I consider my velocity = 0.

Exact same thing here, I am holding still on the ground I consider my velocity =0 in relation to the speed of the ground (earths circular/rotational speed) and Xu Xin's speed related to the speed of the ground is lets say "10" and is also "10" in comparison to my speed which I considered to be zero.

So when I see Xu Xin move in comparison to my movement that is 0, it is clearly to me that he stops and backswings. Seriously, no mean to offend but it is more than clear that XX stops for a split of a second (cant measure how long exactly...), there is not even a valid arguement for me.

You are totally correct about the curved path of ML but again, exacty at the middle of the "eclipsed type"  of curve ML pauses his hand when he backswings. 

Besides if he doesnt pause tensing his forearm and shoulder muscles, the hand will drop down by gravity. Simple physics, the total energy of a system is always maintained to zero.

The system is mlongs muscles (or himself as a whole :P), the air, gravity and the thermal energy produced by friction and movement correct me if I forgot something, in my equation :)

U have two movements (back swing and forward swing) explain to me in physics how exactly

an object (hand or paddle or ball or all of them, its your choice) can travel this way <- then this way -> without stopping by external forces (ma longs muscles that tense when he backswings for example, or any other player) and then accelerate again in different directions. Pure momentum is simply not enough!

or without stopping because of collision (the famous "dwell time" between ball and paddle for example)

The only way this could happen is when we have, no air resistance no friction and no gravity., thus no internal energy loss in the system that "goes out" of the system in the form of thermal energy

In the graphic below let's forget about the lines and just focus on the point on the ellipse where they meet; obviously that point is travelling at the same speed all around the ellipse; it does not suffer a slow down in speed there due to some Gs making it suffocating and push on the brake pedal...now if that is the paddle you get the point.

I want to precise that I do not mean there is no pause in the stroke; I just want to ask: is the stroke optimum when that pause is minimum? is the best footwork the type that allows minimizing that pause? 

Am not a professional player to answer your question with 100% validity but yes, I suppose perfect footwork does not minimize the pause, but that you will always have optimum time to react to hit the ball no matter how fast it travels to you.

As for the other question about optimum stroke, yes if you rely on relaxed minimum effort strokes

The whole stopping backswing hitting forwardswing after contact is optimum in terms of maximum speed, thus returning the ball as fast as possible to pressure your opponent. Hope I helped :D

p.s. nice tricky remark there about the elliptical movement of the planets, I was focusing only on the paddle muscle and ball "System" I am not so expertised to know the laws of the planetary system, just know very well the basic laws of mechanics and physics :P, thank you for your approach

I am saying that no matter how eccentric the ellipse there is always a curved path that exists at the two ends. And a real stroke in the real world is anything but perfectly straight back and forth. 

we could say the fh smash of a high ball presents a motion the closest to a circle (parallel to the length of the table) and the best example to illustrate the additional speed we get with no pause after the back swing.

Yeah, forget about this no name guy! Lin Dan ...I give you Andy Roddick serve

Actually, Lin Dan - smashes so hard - imagine if he paused. As the coach said it's for additional power.

In the Roddick video - there is quite a slow down of the racquet before the massive acceleration.

In my mind it's this acceleration people are trying to generate by slowing down the racquet on the back swing - whether or not they come to a complete stop - I am convince it's important to slow the racquet on the back swing now.

My response: You're right to notice this. We are dealing with a finite amount of energy in the system. Say a baseball pitcher can throw his fastball 95 mph. He'll throw it at that speed every time (close enough). The reason is that that is all his body (system) is capable of producing. This is his maximum power pitch and he will hit 95 every time. That is, every time he is able to extract this maximum power from his windup and delivery.

For that to happen, the ball has to be quiet in the transition. To the extent the transition is rushed, energy is wasted in starting the reversal too soon. This would result in less than full power and control. Power necessarily follows control.

By the same token, a table tennis player possesses a finite amount of energy that can be used for the full power shot. You can't extract more than the maximum, but you can get a lot less when you lose that sense of quietness at transition. Without that quietness, you will not be able to start back with all at your disposal...you won't even be starting it; it will be starting without you (rebounding). 

In another post I said,

"I continue to answer the question, "Would this theory work in TT?", in the affirmative. Further, it generalizes to physical actions in any sport."

To which tt4me responded,

My reply: A pause (quietness) of optimal length enables the player to extract the maximum power from the stroke. That optimal time is sensed by the player and of course occurs near the end of the coiling. I say near the end because the hand/racket unit is quiet even before the coiling is fully complete.

There doesn't have to be a positive relationship between longer pause and more power to prove the point. We don't expect a sprinter to remain in the "get set" position any longer than he senses the need (assuming there's no gun and the sprinter can start when he wants) 

There is, however, a relationship between the pause becoming increasingly shorter than optimum and a loss of power. Just blur your arm back and forth and see how good that feels. It won't come forward any faster than it went back.

And, finally, a lot of posts are getting involved with circular and elliptical motions. This is really off the track. There is no directional bias in these motions. A speed can be constant in relation to its circular or elliptical path, but varying in relation to a fixed point on the horizontal. There is still a moment in the elliptical motion when it stops going backward and begins to go forward. Naturally, this means at a certain point the velocity is zero in both directions.

I believe this point is illustrated perfectly in the Roddick serve motion video at about 22sec (stick figure version)

Thats absolutely correct, I didnt clarify that of course all of the strokes are not happening in a perfectly straight line, I thought this was taken for granted sorry for the misunderstanding my friend :)

Dude, both me and josepher replied to your questions saying the exact same things with different words (no pause doesnt ADD power, the backswing DOES because the muscles tense in the backswing pause and then contract to RELEASE the stored energy to the ball! simple as that!), we are just having a conversation expressing our opinions, why should the thread be deleted?

I have no problem to reconsider my thoughts, even though I am  sure that I am quite accurate (not 100% but I believe I got the case solved in its substance), I dont see any myths around, just opinions either true or false based on personal experience.

If you believe that what we are saying is false, you can express yourself using the laws of physics to convince us. That is what everybody here is doing I think, its pointless to argue just for the arguement or to prove something :)

Actually that's not the argument that I think you guys were putting forth. I for one never argued that a back swing is not necessary to generate power nor would I. 

My issue was with the transition between the back swing and the forward part of the swing and your claim that the motion stops during that transition. I don't think I expressed or implied that not stopping added power. 

My argument was that by not stopping you conserve some of the angular momentum and energy you used to pull the paddle back in the first place. That's what I was getting at with the red car, blue car analogy. By not stopping you reduce the amount of power necessary to achieve max swing speed and/or increase the max swing speed that is possible in the time and distance you have to work with. I think you are only thinking of the part of the swing that is moving forward into the ball and not considering that you could borrow some of the energy you exerted during the back swing so you don't have to start from a dead stop.

In 2D orbital mechanics this would be  an eccentric orbit. note the acceleration as the radius decreases. That's the conservation of angular momentum.

Of course in high level professional play with really fast balls, maybe  players can achieve a continuous motion inbetween two contacts, but I cant validate this fact for sure cause Iam not a professional player :)

As I said before, you guys don't know the definition of power.  Power is the conversion of energy from one form to another.  I can jump up and down and for the most part the only result will be heat.

There is a lot of difference between power generated and power delivered.  The ratio of power delivered/power generated is called efficiency.  This is similar to the power at the engine and the power that is measured by a dynamometer at the wheel.

One does not extract energy or power from strokes or pauses.  You burn calories to generate power.

If you want to hit a ball or shuttle faster you simply need to swing faster so the impact speed is faster.

It can be done with a high acceleration over a short time or a lower acceleration over a longer time, it makes no difference.   The only thing that matters is the speed at impact.

About that conservation of angular momentum.  The paddle is not in orbit or rotating around something.

The paddle will not rotate around a elbow joint or should joint. The animations.

I am not interested in anybody's opinions, only facts and so far this thread has been thin on facts and very thick on made up bad information.

   

fatt,

I disagree in the segment you are talking about service motion and backswing starts at 35s. In my opinion I see a pause in the racquet motion aroun 47s or 48s - you can argue there is movement but it's very small - I would say velocity would be very very low - basically all the energy is in the body - not in the racquet at this point. Then the racquet is accelerated to the point of contact.

So what we have here is a difference opinion as to when and where the swing starts. If you define the swing on your terms - there is no pause - if you define it on my terms - then there is a pause. I guess it's all about perspective.

See the problem I have with starting the swing at 47s - if you look at the hand (not the racquet head) notice it is moving forward. So where is the backswing - if that is the beginning of the swing? So in my opinion you are only examining half the swing. That would explain our differing view points about the pause.

V-Griper - I think in this clip Federer is in a practice warm up mode - he wouldn't be trying to generate extra power. As the Badminton coach said - pause/stop will add an additional 10% - 20%. You will only see players doing it for winners in match play. Not during warm ups. 

I agree in Tennis stopping the racquet on ground stroke would be hard because of the weight of the racquet. Although, I wondered about Del Potro - he seems to hold the racquet still for while....but haven't studied it.

Yes.

From my perspective I think of it as one continuous motion where I'm trying to recycle as much power as is possible under the constraints. 

So I would say that stroke starts with the acceleration at take back, then through a tight transition, like a slingshot orbit and then keeps accelerating to ball contact. 

Or you could just hit the damn ball!! 

This is just starting to get ridiculous.

I need to get a life

Same thing.

Yes, It's time to take a pause and hit the ball!

of course ! its more than obvious. we are talking about TT here where the recoil between two hits is much faster than badminton. The badminton coach though makes a mistake, the backswing is what adds the power, not the pause, pause helps correct timing and maximum energy release with minimum effort, so I suppose that he was trying to say something like that.

I havent played badminton to be 100% sure though 

Well ok we have a real smartass here. Bravo my friend you knocked us all out . Im not gonna post the one and only definition of power but I will let you search for yourself. 

Obivously we are talking for the power energy or force or whatever you wanna call it to the BALL. We are not talking about the definition of POWER. So if you gonna play mr smartass, go chech some physics book and you will see that POWER = ENERGY PER ....

Total waste of time answering to douchebags like you, but anyway I tried to be friendly but it seems like we have a 14 yo kiddo here with libido issues.