Videos - How to serve [Good instructional Video]

Print Page | Close Window

How to serve [Good instructional Video]

Printed From: Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET
Category: Pictures & Videos
Forum Name: Videos
Forum Description: Post table tennis video download information here.
Moderator: mickd
Assistant Moderators:
URL: http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=73076
Printed Date: 04/27/2024 at 12:20pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: How to serve [Good instructional Video]

Posted By: acid
Subject: How to serve [Good instructional Video]
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 1:13am

Here is a good basic instructional video on the Services, spins, contacts etc. ! I found it very helpful for a lot of people. With the slow motion of many top players' services in the world, hope you all can learn something from this. Clap

-------------
if Life is short, play Ping Pong to make it longer :P

Replies:

Posted By: acid
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 1:29am

Left hand and Reverse Pendulum serves Ouch

Wanna be like JZK ? LOL Wink

-------------
if Life is short, play Ping Pong to make it longer :P

Posted By: boliao
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 7:25am

Nothing against you acid.

I just find it interesting both service instructional videos from ittf would show these 'near vertical' throws Ouch

Posted By: zeio
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 12:40pm

Actually, I expected Par Gerell to be featured in the video.

-------------
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare)
+ Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃〃)
= 184.8g

Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 12:47pm

boliao wrote:

Nothing against you acid.

I just find it interesting both service instructional videos from ittf would show these 'near vertical' throws Ouch

I think this clearly shows the intent of the ITTF in terms of the degree of latitude they think should be allowed. Like I said earlier, the rule was intended as a tweak, not a sea change.

Posted By: ThePongProfessor
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 1:08pm

And the same goes for 'serve must be visible': what ITTF really meant was, you can cheat almost as much as you want to.

-------------
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/ThePongProfessor

http://mytabletennis.net/forum/feedback-thepongprofessor_topic69419.html" rel="nofollow - Feedback

Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 1:26pm

I think it is like the strike zone in professional baseball and I just don't let it bother me.

Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 1:49pm

Baal wrote:

boliao wrote:

Nothing against you acid.

I just find it interesting both service instructional videos from ittf would show these 'near vertical' throws Ouch

I think this clearly shows the intent of the ITTF in terms of the degree of latitude they think should be allowed. Like I said earlier, the rule was intended as a tweak, not a sea change.

It's fairly ridiculous to say this after all the evidence wturber presented in the last thread.

There is guidance around ball toss and near vertical throws. Why not reference that instead of making up something about the intention of the rules, when historical evidence has already shown that the intention behind the rules is not in accordance with what you claimed?

-------------
https://youtu.be/jhO4K_yFhh8?t=115" rel="nofollow - I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Cybershape Carbon
FH/BH: H3P 41D.
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes. No time to train...

Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 2:08pm

Well, let us just say that ITTF presents a highly mixed message. I am still impressed most by the way ITTF umpires call matches in the most important events, and now this. Like many organizations, I suspect there are factions within ITTF. Or they simply can't all get on the same page.

In other sports when competition committees of the primary organization mandate a rule change, or some change in the way existing rules are enforced, there is usually significant movement by referees/umpires towards the desire outcome. Certainly you see this in basketball and American football in the US (what constitutes roughing the passer or pass interference, or what constitutes a charge or blocking foul in the paint). ITTF umpires are actually pretty consistent in what they allow as far as I can tell.

But there are exceptions. In professional baseball in the US, a strike is defined as ""The Strike Zone is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the boottom of the knees. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball." In fact, it is almost always called differently than that and different umpires have different strike zones. http://www.businessinsider.com/mlb-strike-zone-2014-9

Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 2:36pm

Baal wrote:

Well, let us just say that ITTF presents a highly mixed message. I am still impressed most by the way ITTF umpires call matches in the most important events, and now this. Like many organizations, I suspect there are factions within ITTF. Or they simply can't all get on the same page.

In other sports when competition committees of the primary organization mandate a rule change, or some change in the way existing rules are enforced, there is usually significant movement by referees/umpires towards the desire outcome. Certainly you see this in basketball and American football in the US (what constitutes roughing the passer or pass interference, or what constitutes a charge or blocking foul in the paint). ITTF umpires are actually pretty consistent in what they allow as far as I can tell.

But there are exceptions. In professional baseball in the US, a strike is defined as ""The Strike Zone is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the boottom of the knees. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball." In fact, it is almost always called differently than that and different umpires have different strike zones. http://www.businessinsider.com/mlb-strike-zone-2014-9

Let's just say that whatever you are saying, it is largely your own opinion, which is respectable, but must be stated as such.

Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 2:41pm

For sure, that is just my opinion but I also think that it is supported by various things we can all see with our eyes.

Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 2:47pm

Baal wrote:

For sure, that is just my opinion but I also think that it is supported by various things we can all see with our eyes.

Yes, but also in contrast with many things that can also be seen with the eyes, especially the official rules that were ratified by the ITTF rules committees and the guidance provided in such books for interpreting the rules, things that your eyes seem to conveniently not see when it suits you.

Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 2:50pm

I weigh what I see a certain way. Others weigh it differently. What I see perhaps is colored by my opinion that from the beginning this was a dumb rule. So no I am not entirely objective.

The one thing everyone agrees on is that the rules are essentially never enforced the way they are written. And I ask, how can that be in the most important events in our sport and in other things ITTF allows to be released with their name on it? Is it one of the four following explanations or are the other reasons why people are allowed to serve this way?

1. Incompetent or spineless umpires (what wturber seems to be arguing)?

2. Current serves among pro players are a feflection of what ITTF had in mind (wturber has presented good evidence this is probably not the explanation).

3. Has there been a realization that even if things are called a little differently from the rules originally specified, the difference in serving motions compared to what was common in 1999 has still accomplished the goal of making serve less of an advantage than before, and they don't want to go any further to help the returner?

4. Factions within ITTF that actually reflect the different points of view we see here at MyTT?

Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 3:02pm

Baal wrote:

boliao wrote:

Nothing against you acid.

I just find it interesting both service instructional videos from ittf would show these 'near vertical' throws Ouch

I think this clearly shows the intent of the ITTF in terms of the degree of latitude they think should be allowed. Like I said earlier, the rule was intended as a tweak, not a sea change.

Baal wrote:

I weigh what I see a certain way. Others weigh it differently. What I see perhaps is colored by my opinion that from the beginning this was a dumb rule. So no I am not entirely objective.

The one thing everyone agrees on is that the rules are essentially never enforced the way they are written. And I ask, how can that be in the most important events in our sport and in other things ITTF allows to be released with their name on it? Is it one of the four following explanations or are the other reasons why people are allowed to serve this way?

1. Incompetent or spineless umpires (what wturber seems to be arguing)?

2. Current serves among pro players are a feflection of what ITTF had in mind (wturber has presented good evidence this is probably not the explanation).

3. Has there been a realization that even if things are called a little differently from the rules originally specified, the difference in serving motions compared to what was common in 1999 has still accomplished the goal of making serve less of an advantage than before, and they don't want to go any further to help the returner?

4. Factions within ITTF that actually reflect the different points of view we see here at MyTT?

I think the contrast between the above two posts speaks for itself. I have no problems with the second post, which I think far more accurately describes the current state than the first, which unproblematically casts your opinion as the current state.

Posted By: Baal
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 3:26pm

Well, the second one is better for sure. I thought about it longer before I wrote it and then I wrote it more carefully.

I still find it pretty funny that the ITTF releases a video on how to serve that shows (with red lines!!!) non vertical serves that will give some people here indigestion. Clearly somebody at ITTF thinks that is ok.

Posted By: NextLevel
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 3:41pm

Baal wrote:

Well, the second one is better for sure. I thought about it longer before I wrote it and then I wrote it more carefully.

I still find it pretty funny that the ITTF releases a video on how to serve that shows (with red lines!!!) non vertical serves that will give some people here indigestion. Clearly somebody at ITTF thinks that is ok.

Yes, it is funny. I really believe that other than conversations and a few clinics, there is nothing like the kind of umpire review that major sports have to standardize officiating. Table tennis is a broke man's sport.

Posted By: igorponger
Date Posted: 10/02/2015 at 10:09pm

"SERVICE OF PRONOUNCED LEGALITY." THE NEW RULE 2.6.6.1

Umpire must be invariably alert of the low toss service. Player is required to perform a service that "obviously legal". This implys a toss distinctly above 16cm. Say about 25 --50cm.

Once you throw a low toss 16cm, this is the trigger for umpire to think your toss of suspicious legality.

The new Law 2.6.6.1 dictates as follows
-- Service that is not clearly legal shall be reckoned as incorrect.

Posted By: smackman
Date Posted: 10/03/2015 at 12:58am

What about between a and b? this the area of pro serving

-------------
Ulmo Duality,Donic BlueGrip C2 red max ,Yinhe Super Kim Ox Black
NZ table tennis selector, third in the World (plate Doubles)I'm Listed on the ITTF website