slow/fast blades/rubber
Alexander J. Chien
Hi -
It's taken me a while to try this out - finals really took a lot out
of me the last 2 weeks...
Anyway - I think the original question was:
Assuming two blades of exactly the same speed, how would you
expect the characteristics to be different between a slow blade with
fast rubber (i.e. defensive blade w/ekrips) of a fast blade with
slow rubber (i.e. carbon/allaround w/tackiness chop).
I found it very difficult to imagine two blades of the same exact speed
but the following is a mesh of combinations I tried over the last week:
rubbers: tackiness chop 1.7, butterfly allround 1.5, vario 2.0, waldi 2.0,
sriver 2.0
blades: hock 5-ply large head, sardius, mincon allround, mincon pro,
double happiness pf4-008
Although I dont think I could get 2 blades with the same speed, i thought
some things were interesting.
The following are someobservations of mine with the above combinations.
I do believe that different people with different hands and different timing
etc will have different opinions, but here are mine (some are silly-obvious,
some are a bit surprising to me)
fast blades with fast rubber are faster than slow blades with slow rubber.
a slow blade with slow rubber is still very effective for offense if you
play close to the table
fast blade with slow rubber was faster smashing, hitting, and blocking.
slow blade with fast rubber was just a bit faster than fastblade/slowrubber
when looping with control in mind.
it's much easier to loop when the sponge thickness is greater, especially
from mid/far distance.
it's much easier to attack from long distance with a faster blade. regardless
of rubber speed.
Putting it all together - my inclination is to say -
If you play offense -
If you're a close to table player it won't make much of a difference.
If you play further away from the table, you need a faster blade.
If you like to loop, use a faster rubber thicker sponge too.
If you like to hit, use a faster blade.
But somehow i have the feeling that the original poster was talking about
defense rather than offense. My chopping tactics are rudimentary at best
but I spent the two weeks before my finals trying to chop (what the *ell
was I thinking? and part of my time this week trying to chop - I do this
for about 2-3 weeks every year to convince myself there's no way I can
play defense) And my thoughts are -
The faster blade will give you more of a threat to counterattack
a ball from mid/long distance. The slow blade seems to only allow for pick
hits of pushed balls/really high sitting loops close to the table. However,
it does seem that I am able to put heavier chop on the ball with a slow
blade and still land the ball on the table.
Wow... did I get my 2 cents worth?
-Alex
Alexander J. Chien
Hi
I too have seen/heard all too often at the detroit teams the quote
'i can only lose points in this tie, don't play me.' It seems unfortunate,
but it's the way things are. Our rating system in the US does not lend
itself well to a team tournament. The detroit teams is a long, three day,
rather grueling tournament. Theoretically, the team's benefit should come
first, not the individuals. What problems does this translate to? Well,
(Im trying to update people who don't know the format for the US teams
here) The first day's play, your team plays against 4 different teams -
two of which aren't of the same caliber of your team, and 2 teams that
are better than yours. The second and third days you play teams that are all
within the same caliber/ability as yours - for the medals. What the first
day does is that if your team is actually better, and beats a team originally
rated above you, you will play in a higher division that second and third days.
If you happen to lose to a team you're supposed to beat, you move down
to a less competitive division for the second and third days play. What
does this mean? it translates into a few things: first of all, some players
on your team won't play the two teams lower than you the first day and will
want to play the two teams above you - cause that's where the rating points
are. And then if they do play a lower rated team. Say you run into one
player who is extremely undderrated, while his/her two teammates are
of much less ability. You know if you just take it easy and dump the match
to this one guy, your team will still win at 5:3. That's the way it should
be, but no, the way our rating system has it, you have to fight for your
50 points, working hard and tiring yourself out. So as a result, you've got
players who played very hard the first day of the tournament - against
higher rated teams and against underrated players -
ane everyone's TIRED
for days 2 and 3, where the 'real team battle' is supposed to be. And now
because players are tired, they know they'll probably lose rating points
and then refuse to play. So if your team took the first day 'easy', say you
win against the 2 lower teams 5:3 and 5:2 and if you play modestly against
the better opponents (.i.e. don't beat yourself up when you obviously
arent going to get those rating points), your team will be much better off
in terms of personel for the medal.
Has this ever happened to me? Thank goodness no. But little bits and parts
of this seems to happen to every team at detroit. And if you're not careful
who you choose for your teammates, it can be a very unpleasant tournament.
Okay, ready for #2?
This one is much simpler to understand. Last Auguest they held a detroit
grand round robin team tournament. 2 player teams - the top 10 teams
in terms of rating were grouped together, and then the next 20 teams
were grouped together. Now I didnt have the chance to play in the tournament,
but I did see the scorecards. There were two teams that were say 6th and 7th
in their division, both of those teams played matches against all the teams
rated above them. And they defaulted all the matches with players rated
below them. Now if this isnt a hint of rating-protectionm I dont know what
is.
Am I ripping the rating system? I hope not, cause i actually do happen to
like the system. But sometimes it is the 'dark' side of
table tennis where people break $60 blades, shout profanities, and are
down-right boors, just for 50 points on some mysterious scale...
Scott L. Burson
> Say you run into one
>player who is extremely undderrated, while his/her two teammates are
>of much less ability. You know if you just take it easy and dump the match
>to this one guy, your team will still win at 5:3. That's the way it should
>be, but no, the way our rating system has it, you have to fight for your
>50 points, working hard and tiring yourself out.
But if someone really is grossly underrated, they're almost certain to have
their rating adjusted. So you're not really likely to lose 50 points after
all.
And even if you do -- what's so awful about losing rating points? You then
get to play in lower brackets. I'm not suggesting one should do it
intentionally, but surely that's some compensation if it happens... so it
seems to me anyway... I guess it would be different if one's rating were being
used as qualification for a team or something. But in that case, perhaps one
shouldn't be playing in a tournament like Detroit.
>Has this ever happened to me? Thank goodness no. But little bits and parts
>of this seems to happen to every team at detroit. And if you're not careful
>who you choose for your teammates, it can be a very unpleasant tournament.
Sounds like it!
>This one is much simpler to understand. Last Auguest they held a detroit
>grand round robin team tournament. 2 player teams - the top 10 teams
>in terms of rating were grouped together, and then the next 20 teams
>were grouped together. Now I didnt have the chance to play in the tournament,
>but I did see the scorecards. There were two teams that were say 6th and 7th
>in their division, both of those teams played matches against all the teams
>rated above them. And they defaulted all the matches with players rated
>below them. Now if this isnt a hint of rating-protectionm I dont know what
>is.
Geez, if everyone did that, no matches would get played at all!
It strikes me as a sportsmanship issue -- people want the opportunity to gain
points, but don't want to give this same opportunity to those below them.
But like I said before, if the possibility of winning one's event is not
sufficient motivation to do otherwise, I don't know what would be.
-- Scott
Richard S. Fee
Great experiment. I've been debating about the effect having
a new (good) paddle with new (good) rubber would have on my
game. I'm currently around 1000, but was probably around 1300
when I was playing regularly 15+ years ago.
My current problem is that with the equipment I have, I can't judge
whether my strokes are correct or not by the result. It seems as though
many balls that feel well hit are going long. This point will soon be
moot as I am geeting a new paddle in the mail, but this experiment seems
to suggest that it may help me in the long run. I hope to develop a
fast, spinny game and currently use a slow, unspinny paddle. I feel as
though the added motion I use to create spin is hampering my control.
I'll report later on the effect the new bat has on my game.
Regards
Richard Fee