Oh Lord you're opening a can of worms here

I would define "throw" as the height that the (rubber/blade) gives the ball on a standard loop.

I would define "arc" as the shape of the path of travel that the ball takes.

You could realistically use arc/throw interchangeably though.

I would define "catapult" as something slightly different to "speed". To me, "catapult" is the rebound effect that the (rubber/blade) has on the ball. For example, Calibra LT Sound on a TSP 3.5 Balsa blade will "ping" the ball forward with very little effort. That has a HIGH catapult effect.

On the other hand "speed" or "power" would be defined by how quickly the (rubber/blade) plays certain strokes, i.e. the powerloop. I think weight has an important part to play in this. The aforementioned Calibra/Balsa combo won't give you real power on a powerloop.

Oh boy. Go look through the last years' worth of posts, you'll find lots of discussion and very little light shed.

One thing I'm pretty sure DOESN'T happen is the blade flexing along it's length. Even the thin blades are just too stiff given the weight of the ball we play with.

Iskandar

I’m trying to understand but I hear different explanations, so please enlighten me…

Are throw and arc the same concepts pointing to the flatness (or curvedness) of the ball trajectory?

Do faster blades by definition mean a flatter trajectory (lower throw)?

How does wood hardness play a role in trajectory. I’d assume lower throw because it’s faster?

Does flex mean higher catapult and less linearity? Making throw higher? Or is catapult basically the same as speed?

Thanks!

Throw is the initial angle that a given stroke will produce. So for example, with the same fh drive stroke the ball will come off a rakza 7 setup higher than a rakza 9 setup. Neither is better or worse, it is about what you prefer and strokes can be adjusted. I also find that high throw rubbers tend to be both spinnier and more sensitive to spin. Rubbers with larger pimples, either in or out, tend to be lower throw. I am sure there are lots more variables too.

For me arc is the shape, or 'dip' that a loop can achieve, so very closely related to how much topspin a rubber can generate balanced with its speed....the quicker it is the less opportunity the ball has to dip. Arc is a good thing!

Catapult is, to me, the opposite of linearity. The 'free' speed that you get from a fast, modern and nearly always softer rubber or certain blades. Linear setups have more control and better touch but you have to work harder for the speed. Often this means harder rubbers with higher top end speeds.

Blades are greatly affected by construction and materials. The modern composites are stiff and often quick, all wood blades tend to be flexier. Less plies tend to be flexier. But these are generalisations. Rule of thumb is stiffer for close to the table and flexier at distance.

In my opinion many of the terms (catapult, flex, throw, arc, speed) are used in different ways by different persons. It would make sense to use them in just one way, that is according to the definition they have in the natural sciences.

Catapult is acceleration, i.e. the phenomenon that a force when exerted on an object will increase or decrease its speed. Speed is the result of the exertion of force.

Flex is the force exerted by a blade that regains its overall shape, reacting to the deformation which is due to the impact of the ball. As a rule, a blade consisting of less and/or thinner plies will have more flex; but the woods used are a separate factor in this. A blade consisting of more and/or thicker plies will have less flex. Especially blades with a thick core will have little flex.

Spring is the force exerted by a blade when one or more of its plies react to the (local) compression which is due to the impact of the ball. Note the difference with flex, which isn’t due to local deformation, but overall deformation. Of course, the influence on the ball is the same, viz. increase or decrease of its speed. Spring depends on the consistency of the woods used. Balsa has a lot of spring, as a rule; hinoki as well; willow has little spring. There is little or no relation between spring and the number of plies used; but the thickness of the plies is a factor – generally the thicker, the more spring.

Throw refers to the angle with which an incoming ball with zero spin bounces off.
A blade that tends to deform as a whole (flex) on impact will have a high throw, as it bends backwards, thus increasing the angle.
A blade that tends to be compressed locally (spring) on impact will have a low throw, as it doesn’t bend and thus the angle isn’t increased.

In contrast to throw, arc is the curvature of the complete trajectory of the ball leaving the blade until it contacts the table. The curvature can be high (short and domed trajectory) or low (long and flat trajectory).
A blade with flex tends to have high arc, due to its high throw. A blade with spring tends to have a low arc, due to its low throw. Still, a fast blade will generally produce a lower arc than a slow blade.

A blade with low speed can nevertheless have high catapult. This will be the case when it is relatively thin and therefore has high flex. This kind of slow defensive blades will produce “unexpected” speed with a good swing and therefore will loop just fine for counter-attack away from the table.

A blade with high speed will nearly always have high catapult – without it, it wouldn’t be able to generate that speed. But there is one exception: a very heavy blade will be able to produce high speed even when it is relatively slow, not flexy and not springy, and has little catapult. This is because here momentum is of more importance than acceleration. Heavy blades with low catapult tend to excel in control, which may explain why they are popular in Asia.

I'm surprised that the original poster is Pipsy, who does not need advice from me, but this post is for most people interested in this kind of thread:

It's terribly unfortunate that a community like this can't develop a glossary to help us reason together better. Since that isn't going to happen (and we wouldn't want to try to force people to stick to it anyway, right?), I'll mention again a very good alternative: find a player who plays the way you wish to play (keeping in mind that wishing is not enough, so if you aim higher you'll need more coaching and practice), and whose equipment you can identify with reasonable-enough certainty, and just use what they use. Then watch their videos and train to hit as they do. They'll show you the useable performance "envelope" of that equipment; no motley crew of equipment reviewers should be trusted above that.
Compared to the neck-deep chaos and nonsense we must wade through and sort through, of rubber and blade reviews, the chosen player shows us what a rubber and blade can do; we skip the verbiage, choose the player, and then practice equipment-worry free.

What about my own preferences? I have a right to them but it costs me. For example, I continuously itch for a spinnier rubber than my model player uses. If I change, then the outlines of the corresponding game would change, and this is how it would happen if I followed the above principle: I would not shop for a spinnier rubber. Instead, I would shop for a new model player whose game demands a spinnier rubber, and whose equipment I can identify with reasonably-enough certainty, and use whatever the new model uses, and train to play accordingly. The trouble is, my current model plays a game that I can emulate a little and reasonably aspire to, so if I change it would probably be to something more physically demanding (as I already know of players who play similarly but with spinnier rubbers). So I must weigh the cost of that first, and not just salivate over equipment ratings written by people like us. Well, whatever that means I did include myself.

Good luck.