OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Guys, let's try and stick to the point here instead of drifting off to matters like who's better than who and whether or not people have changed their views. I can't imagine somebody profiting from the latter type of dicussion, whereas it certainly seems worthwhile to inform players about possibilities so-called out-dated strokes may still offer.
There used to be strokes typically performed in the single-sided pips-out penholder style only and the forehand topspin wrist-flick is just one of them. In the 1960's (yes, that's long ago, but I was born even before that) Zhuang Zedong (I believe it is written like this; it used to be Tsuang Tse Tung) developed the then existing penholder style, focussing on quick short movements which could be performed over the table or close to the table; this made the style faster, more powerful, and much more effective than before. Tsuang's philosophy, if you will, was in line with the ancient Eastern/Chinese tradition of unarmed combat developed for the weak to defend against the strong (read: farmers against soldiers), using a simple tool imaginatively to bring out hidden strength. In this style, when defending, one is to use the strength of the enemy against him, and when attacking, to use all of one's own at once without getting vulnerable. The forehand wrist-flick is an attacking stroke; it may look unimpressive, but it is devised to allow the player to use all of his force instantly. A straight hard hit may send the ball over the table; the wrist-flick adds topspin so that this fast ball will land on the table instead. It allows the player to hit hard and put all of his weight into the hit. To be able to do that the arm and hand must be before the shoulder, so that the rotation of the upper body ("going into the ball") is completely transferred to the stroke. The player has not only to come behind the ball, but also stay behind his bat. His bat is his sword, but his shield at the same time; because the stroke is made with such small movement, the bat is always in position to deal with the return. Chinese players of this old (better: classic) school seem to move around very little, apparently taking their ease, but in fact they move very fast, they just keep their strokes shorter than everybody else. The wrist-flick is a forehand attacking stroke, but Tsuang introduced several backhand attacking strokes, too; similar to the wrist-flick, because so very little motion is used, they look like a block and actually are developed from it. The left-side hit is a left-side block that is made aggressive by adding a short but very fast flick of the underarm and wrist; again, this adds topspin, allows to pick up the ball, and land it on the table with speed. Here also it is the body that brings power to the stroke: a quick leaning forward, bringing the weight of the body so far forward that sometimes the left leg has to be extended backwards to retain the balance. And then there were defensive strokes that used a flick of the wrist, for instance the right-side and left-side high sidespin push that looks much like the high chop especially female shakehander defenders use close to the table; or the short-cut chop, a stabbing down that cuts off the pace of an incoming topspin attack and reverses the spin at the same time, producing a flat ball that will land short and, when returned, almost always will be attackable. Much of this repertoire was used less and less when the game was dominated more and more by fast and spinny inverted rubbers, not because it became less effective, but because this rubbers allowed shakehanders to be almost as effective in over the table play as penholders. Since penholders had to practice for 5 years (learning attack and defence) whereas shakehanders had to practice for just 3 (learning attack only), the old school virtually died out. They came back into the game with the introduction of the 40 mm ball, which made the game shorter initially; now, penholders again had the advantage over shakehanders - theoretically, and not by much. But because of that other modern development, the introduction of the 11-point system, it seemed to many that points had to be won more quickly than ever before and the ability to initiate attack became almost an obsession with players and coaches. Yet a few defenders did very well and so did the even fewer remaining masters of the old pips-out penholder school. The reason for this is, in my opinion, that the harder the attack, the easier it can be redirected to the attacker. A skilled defender and a skilled pips-out penholder have learned how to use the increased force of the modern attackers against them and in doing so create opportunities for counter-attack. That is why Tsuang's repertoire and way of thinking are - still or again - very much worth to consider. They are not out-dated and I think they never will be.

dh

the question was not whether or not the few ph players you have played can beat *me* ...the question was really how many good ph players Have you played? by your answer is sounds like you have played about three.

No, I questioned what you call Good? in my 30 yrs playing experience, I've probably played 20 who are a better standard than you, but far below JJ's standard. There did used to be far more of them,in the UK I must say.

And you have vast experience? do they have many down in the Canadian 600's

yes, i have vast experience playing phs due to my particular location. they of course play at all levels not just 600

what are yr views on the pro's and cons of p/hold players employing the use of the RPB? would you advise a p/holder of a decent level to adapt to use the RPB or not and what would yr reasons be for yr advice? What do you consider the main weakness of RPB? Thanks in anticipation

Do you not think that the RPB presents the exponent with a Crossover point that previously did not exist. Not having a crossover point is the reason that yr Friend JJ was so quick close to the table, the pendulum action from f/hand across to b/hand left him and his compartriots with only one face of the bat to strike the ball with, in contrast to the shakehander who has decision time and stroke limitations when played close to the body up to the table, this is why before the heavy topspin game evolved the penhold game was superior especially in close to the table play, but terribly weak when it was exposed off the table on the b/hand wing. The rpb has solved the problem off the table and to brought the p/hold b/hand to a parr with the sh/hands b/hand close to the table, but it has the disadvantage of creating a crossover p[oint that did not previously exist. This is the reason that many top p/hold players have not adopted that style. I can carry on later, I've got a match to go to.....

Kees..is backing Jiang Jialang and the traditional penhold style

Kees

very well said..you sound like a seasoned veteran or a young wise man...either way, its nice to encounter someone with an evolved outlook.

I think that patronising remarks such as above may be leaving a sour taste in a few mouths including mine, the implication is that anyone who does not agree with yr 'evolved' statements and comments is not ''a seasoned veteran or a young wise man who has evolved'' I can assure you we're quite seasoned, pretty wise, and there are many players around here who hold a standard that you can only dream about. nuff said?