Producing side underspin on the chiquita - blahness blunders promoted by NextLevel, ttMonster, Ander999,Tony'sTableTe

[Cynthia 89]

Blahness posted the vidoe below & claims it is an underspin chiquita

Pretty hilarious.
I don't think Blahness even understands what underspin is

[James Z]

I saw that video. Yeah it was so funny that Blahness was claiming it was a backspin chiquita

I looked at the video in some detail.
Take a look at the attachment

chiquita lower left coach meng.jpg (108.37 KiB) Viewed 18240 times

The coach says the contact is made at the lower left part of the ball.

I know back spin can be created if the rackethed is moving underneath & forward .
But here the racket is moving upward and sideward towards the left

[Fredrin]

Lots of times the person who translates may totally twist it to mean entirely something else.
I wish Blahness would stops accepting anything anyone says without thinking it thru for himself just because someoneis is a coach
WIth this kind of contact (back, left , bottom) and racket moving up & left, there is absolutely noway backspin can be created.
I think Blahness confused the heavy sidespin with backspin just ebcause the partner put the ball into the net/
But that was not due sto backspin but was due to the partner angling the racket against incoming sidespin.
There is no backs pin. It is just heavy side spin & some top spin

[Daryna K]

Have you ever served a ghost serve before? As long as your racket contacts bottom half of the ball and your force is directed forwards (even upwards!) it will produce backspin.

It depends, if the ball is contacted in the front & racket is moving upwards , yes backspin is produced.
But here the coach clearly states in the video that the ball is contacted in th back left
There is no way this can produce backspin if the racket is moving upwards or even sidewards

In this case, the ball is contacted at the bottom, and the direction of force is sideways and forwards. The upwards followthrough is a fake movement similar to a deceptive serve.

Ok even if the upward movement is fake , if the racket is moving sidewards it produces side spin not back spin if the racket is moving right to left ,
If the racket was moving left to right & forward , yes it will produce back spin

I think Blahness saw this video & was very excited and posted , as someone pointed ot, thinking it thru

[Urzila]

I really don't know if the person in the video is creating backspin or just using the opponent's spin and adding sidespin or corkscrew spin but there is some backspin in the return in my opinion.

LOL you are contradicting yourselves in the same sentence

[Cynthia 89]

There is so many examples in the video, so I'm not going to elebarote.
Just go play back the video and see how he is contacting the ball and go and practice it.
it is a common technique nowadays.

Tony,
Why won't you elaborate ?
Are you talking down to other posters in a condescending manner ?
If you unable to explain and defend your position clearly , you should just stay out of the thread.
It is nonsense to ask another poster to go practice.
How does their practice show it is backspin ?
It won't / It will still be top spin + side spin that looks like back spin.............no back spin

[James Z]

Yep. Everyone thinks it is sidetopspin but it is in fact heavy af sideunderspin.

You just say it is but never explained how.
There is no way for this to have underspin because of where the ball is contacted (back left bottom) & which direction the racket is moving.
You claim it is only moving sideways. Even if that is true( It is not) backspin is still not posible because of contact point at the very moment of contact, which is back bottom left.
I can clearly see racket also moving upwards (& forward & sideways) at the moment of contact. There is no fake movement. You ar emaking up garbage stories.

This is the true power of the chiquita, the sheer amount of variation in it that one can produce.

Yes but it does not include back spin LOL
The variation is only the varying combinations of side spin & top spin

Well ppl like James Z would never understand it no wonder he needs his illegal pips to compete

This is a clear proof of zero knowledge of spins.
If you understood spins the pips you call as illegal are the only truly functional pips in the 40+ plastci ball era , you would not be making a fool of yourselves making this insult.

[James Z]

You can make a wheel spin either clockwise or anticlockwise (top or backspin). Hit it with a stick with an upwards and forwards motion from 3 o'clock to 12 and you have topspin.

You meant to say 12 to 3 counter clockwise. Yes that is top spin but that has nothing to do with the contact point in the video

Now, hit the same wheel with an upwards and forwards motion from 6 o'clock to 9 o'clock and how will it spin?

But this video example is not about a circle as in a wheel but about a sphere as with a tabletennis ball.
The contact point in this video is at left bottom & back with racket moving sideways & upward & forward.
What you are saying would be true if the ball is contacted in the front with racket moving upwards as in a backspin forehand serve
This is not forehand & contact in the front but is backhand with contact in the back.
But I can see why you are confused because you have beeb mislead by the return from the partner (ball going into net)
It is NOT because of backspin but because the partner returns the chiquita with wrong racket angle against the spin.

[Cynthia 89]

The underside spin he generated, his paddle is under the ball.

That does not ALWAYS mean backspin.
If my racket is under the ball & if I pull it towards me , what spin would I get ?
That is right .....top spin.

This is not a case of racket being only under the ball. It is to the left
And the racket is moving upwards & sideways. That is the key.
If the racket is behind the ball and moving upwards it produces top spin not back spin
If the racket is moving sideways that produces side spin
This is sort of a mini backhand hook loop with racket moving from right to left & ball will break towards receiver's left.
This is the opposite backhand fade loop of a rightie where the looper contacts the ball on the right back & the ball will break from right to left into the receiver's body unlike the chiquita which breaks away towards the left of the receiver

However take a look at the attachment below where coach explains where he contacts the ball.
It is NOT under but back left . yeas it is bottom half but not under the ball

chiquita lower left coach meng.jpg (108.37 KiB) Viewed 18171 times

[Cynthia 89]

The contact point is actually bottom half of the ball. You are right that if the contact is on the side or back of the ball, no underspin can be generated with this movement.

Hello ......Look at the video & attachment below
Where does the coach say he is contacting the ball ?
Look at where his fingers are pointing.
It is the back & left & yes lower half
If the racket is even moving only right to left sideways with this point of contact , how can it produce backspin ?
It can only produce heavy side spin.
You refuse to admit the racket is also moving upwards at contact but if I agree with you it only produces more side spin but never back spin.
But in reality the racket is moving upwards at the moment of contact.
So the net result is some top spin with heavy side spin.
You mistakenly think it is backspin because the receiver puts the ball into the net but that is because James Z explained, due to the incorrect racket angle against heavy side side spin

chiquita lower left coach meng.jpg (108.37 KiB) Viewed 18173 times

[James Z]

No, that argument doesn't follow. In the video, the players is coming up and forward on the front of the ball and this generates backspin. Your shots will have contacted a different part of the ball than in the video.

No . In the video the coach Meng is contacting the ball on the back left & racket is going upwards & forward but contact is never made in the front of the ball because it is physically impossible to contact the ball in the front iwth this arm motion.

[Caroline Y]

Sunday at 2:38 PM #27
so if I understand correctly ... not only is Coach Meng wrong ... inspite of the video repeatedly showing that there is heavy underspin in the chiquita .. even Mr. Werner Schlager , the last non-Chinese world champion has very little knowledge of table tennis compared to the some of the self proclaimed experts here ...

First of all Werner Schlager is not wrong in the video. However are you saying he has NEVER been wrong on taletennis issues in his life ?

Anyway here is Schlager video by TTDAILY's Dan


First of all Werner Schlager is talking about a forehand backspin serve
In this thread we are talking about a backhand chiquita

That said, the contact point for forehand backspin serve (as Werner Schlager explains it) is in the front of the ball.
To create backspin the racket is pulled up. Yes this will create backspin

But this is has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the backhand chiquita video being discussed hers.
Coach Meng clearly says that he contacts the back left of the ball. Not the front of the ball
So in this case whether the racket is moving ONLY sidewards from right to left or also moving upwards , there is no way in hell backspin can be produced with that direction of motion of the racket.
Again for the 10th time in this thread let me explain this to Blahness , ttMonster, NextLevel, SofaChamp, Tony's Table Tennis & other clueless spammer trolls in TTDaily > you are confused because the coach's partner put his return in the bottom of the net. Yes backspin will put the ball into the bottom of the net if your racket is not open enough for your return. But back spin is the ONLY spin that can cause this. Sidespin van also cause this same error if your racket is angled against the incoming side spin and that is exactly happening here.
This was explained to you about 10 times in this thread & I cannot see any normal person with average intelligence not comprehending this. SO I am sure mots if not all you understand but yet you want to keep trolling defending your extreme stupidity just because you hate one poster (James Z) . This may work in some cases sadly but in a cut & dry simple case like this , there is no reason for any confusion at all.

It is just heavy side spin combined with some top spin & zero back spin

So stop making fools of yourselves

[Tamashiro]

Sunday at 3:52 PM #35
if side under, it will go back underspin
if side top, the ball will not go back underspin

But in the video the coach says the cotact was made to the back left
The contact was neat the botton but not under

Sunday at 3:52 PM #35
Schlagers example is to show different places of contact results in different spin. He showed but didn't talk about different contact point on the blade too. He only showed angle of contact.

But his explanation was about forehand underspin & topspin serves.
NOT about backhand chiquita
Yes the serve will have underspin if cotacted on the front of the ball
But is Coach Meng video the conatct is made at the back left of the ball

Sunday at 3:52 PM #35
Some times these technical explanation is too deep for people who are stuck with 40 year old debate on long pips.

I do not see the correlation. I only see your inability to comprehend the simple fact that backspin cannot be created with the given contact point (back left) & direction of racket movement (right to left & up)

chiquita lower left coach meng.jpg (108.37 KiB) Viewed 18153 times

Sunday at 3:52 PM #35
Some times it is very tiring talking to people on TTD, especially when you not sure if troll is sincere or just back to trolling

Whenever someone exposes your ignorance (of basic understandings of spin & its generation) , they are trolls & must be banned.

[spin booster]

He is not … if you look at the video closely his wrist is not as cocked when producing the underspin …

He is not producing underspin

he is actually more or less using the same motion and contact as schlage’s…

No. Schlager is contacting the front of the ball to produce back spin.
Coach is contacting the back left of the ball. The only way coach can prodcue back spin is if his racket is down and or forward at the moment of contact. But coach Meng's racket is moving from right to left & up. Even if upward movement is fake (it is not here) the sidewards movemnt will only produce sidespin never backspin.

you will know it when you are able to do it …

I have done the heavy sidespin chiquita both fade & hook.
I do not think you even know what that means

[Marochy]

The point here is:
1. By hitting the ball pretty much anywhere with an upwards moment it’s impossible to induce under spin.
2. Then in the original post shows the player doing an upward motion.

Cheers
L-zr

bad camera angle, if there was side view to compare and close up, you might see that the upward motion is after contact.

It does not matter . Even if there is zero upward motion during contact, no back spin can be produced is the racket is moving as you falsely claim, sideways
Lazer is absolutely right. It is not possible to create underspin with the motion shown in the coach's video

if there was any upward contact, it would also be minimal, as his spin was generated from the motion (from how we see it as the audience facing him) from left of the screen to right of the screen, below the middle of the ball.

That will only produce side spin. Never back spin (if the ball is NOT contacted in the front of the ball but is conatcted on the back left)

So here is the sequence of motion, under, side, up.

The contact is NOT under. See attachment of what th coach says

So here is the sequence of motion, under, side, up. The key is the upward is to not drag the ball up but to drag it forward.
So it becomes and under side spin.

No it does not. If you grab the ball on the back left at conatct and pull side & up it becomes side spin & top spin
Yes it will be underspin if the ball is grabbed in front and racket pulled up, as is the case with Schlager's viedo

If he was to drag the ball (with more force/energy) more on upward, then it will eliminate the underspin he added and change it to top spin.
I think this is where people are confused.

The only person who is confused is you. How the hell does a person add backspin and eliminate it with the same motion
This is absurd as you cab get. Stop talking nonsense.
The only reason people like you, ttMonster, ander999, NextLevel etc are confused because you confuse extreme sidespin with backspin, especially because the return of the ball goes into the net. That is not due to any backspin because there isn't any. It is only due to heavy sidespin.

chiquita lower left coach meng.jpg (108.37 KiB) Viewed 18147 times

[Nomfundo Owusu]

Sunday at 5:51 PM #43
At 4 mins 30 seconds in, Coach Meng literally describes his intent is what Blahness and Tony intended (whatever you think of the actual physics). Let's stop this nonsense immediately.

Wow you want to threaten posters just because they disagree with Tony's TableTennis ? SERIOUSLY ?

Even more interesting is that you are a mdoerator on MyTY and try to bully posters on TTDAily....amazing

[Loop Lob Repeat]

Sunday at 5:51 PM #43
At 4 mins 30 seconds in, Coach Meng literally describes his intent is what Blahness and Tony intended (whatever you think of the actual physics). Let's stop this nonsense immediately.

Wow you want to threaten posters just because they disagree with Tony's TableTennis ? SERIOUSLY ?

Even more interesting is that you are a mdoerator on MyTY and try to bully posters on TTDAily....amazing

LOL
The key phrase here is "whatever you think of the actual physics"
It is like saying in a court of law " Judge please ignore the DNA evidence. Please dismiss the case because he is nice guy"
NextLevel wants to ignore what physics says in this case. You do not need even need complex analysis of physics
If you have basic understanding of spin , simple common sense will tell you that thereis no way underspin can be produced even with ONLy sidespin motion ( forget about top spin) , if the ball is contacted on the back left & the racket is pulled right to left.

[Nomfundo Owusu]

Sunday at 5:58 PM #45

Hey some of us may like this discussion ignore the thread if you dont.

Enjoying the discussion is fine. Does that mean one should lie and troll about the video's intent as well?

IMO you are the one who is shamelessly lying

The intent of coach Meng's video may be Ok in that he is describing heavy sidespin chiquita as compared to top spin chiquita
That is fine.
But he is mistaken if he claims it is a backspin chiquita (I am even not sure if he claims that since it is in Chinese & thetranslator may have screwed it up)
Even otherwise I do not understand how it is trolling just because someone disagrees with you.
I guess it is ok for you to threaten posters (to stop the nonsense) ^ try to bully them
Who exactly is the troll here >

[Nomfundo Owusu]

Sunday at 7:02 PM #48

Have yet to see anybody lie in this thread…

I just gave a clear example. James Z is accusing blahness and Tony of not understanding the video and making up an interpretation that the poster did not intend.

But as I see it neither Blahness nor Tony;s Table Tennis nor NextLevel nor ttMonster nor Ander999 nor SofaChamp have clearly understoof the basic facts of the vidoe.
It is NOT possible to create backspin with the contact on the back left bottom & with racket moving sideways (even if you want to ovntinue lying that there is no upward motion at the moment of contac)

Regardless it is a disagreement not a lie as Lazer points out. But by bullying someone by calling them liars & troll sfor a disagreement , you are the one who has turned into a bully & a troll.

I also have noticed that you repeatdly do this on MyTT forum as well. As soon as someone disagrees with you , you call them trolls & threaten to ban them. That is so juvenile

Sunday at 7:02 PM #48
I just posted to go to 4 mins 30 seconds in the video where the coach describes what he is doing like blahness and Tony said.

Whatever he is doing does not produce backspin for sure. It just doesn not produce backspin
So you have never seen coaches make mistakes ?
Coaches get fired all the time in all the sports for technical reasons also & not just always for mismanagement only
You & Tony's TableTennis need to think for yourselves critically without taking somone's word just because he or she is a top coach.

Sunday at 7:02 PM #48
If the problem here is that people can't read subtitles and posts so that they understand what they and others are talking about, then it all makes more sense now.

But what I am saying is that the coach is mistaken in his claim that he is producing backspin. It can only be heavy sidespin with the given hand movement diection & point of contact on the ball at the moment of contact.

Sunday at 7:02 PM #48
then it all makes more sense now.

Just like it all makes send to me that you have no clue as to what you are talking about & cannot think for yourselves but take others word as to whatever they say.

[James Z]

Sunday at 10:54 PM #50

Not lying, difference of opinion as I see it.
Lot of misunderstandings but no lies.
Cheers
L-zr

Click to expand...Okay. If you cant read the subtitles, then you can't tell what the video is trying to say unless you speak Japanese so why are you arguing with someone who has read the subtitles and is telling you what the video says in the subtitles? Again this is a separate issue from whether you agree with the coach or not based on your superior understanding of physics. Saying that someone made up something that the video clearly says is not interpretation, and using the fact that you cant read the subtitles as an excuse just means you should read the subtitles and then apologize for the "mistake" of claiming blahness made it up if your goal is honesty.

No I don't think so.
You are the one who should be aplogizing for bullying posters. is any by asking posters to stop posting just ebcause they disagree with you & other cluless chosen ones & protected posters of TTDaily such as Blahness, Tony's TableTennis, ttMonster, Ander999,SofaChamp etc
I for one (& neither did Lazer) accuse Blahness of lying . I just pointed out that his post claiming that there was backspin is sheer nonsense.. But if you want to continue to defending him without thinking it thru & want to make a complete fool of yourselves, you go right ahead.
I also agree with Lazer in that it is highly likley that the translation was mangled & that mey not be waht the coach intended at all.
Even if he did he is very much mistaken

[James Z]

Can you please quote the subtitles that support your view given the precise reference I have provided to the video at 4 mins 30 seconds Io 4 mins 40 seconds in and how you are willing to reconcile your position on the intent on blahness and Tony with Coach Meng"s stated intent?
Again, this is without getting into whether you think underspin is created or not. This is what the coach stated himself based on the subtitles which you are now proceeding to say I am bullying by calling your attention to. This is going to be interesting.

The issue with your premise is that the coach has to be right & his word is gospel & therefore Blahness & Tony's TableTennis are also right.

All I am saying is that it just is not possible to produce backspin with the given contact poiint by the coach himself (back left) & racket motion sideways (and upwards...even though you all refuse to admit this & even if we can assume there si no upwards motion) .
Again you are all confused because the heavy sidespin caused the ball to go ointo the net. It was not due to any backspin but because the partner angled the racket against the incoming sidespin.
I have explained the basics of spin & sidespin in the website below.
Why don't you read it with an open mind & get a clue. Please click on link below
spin concepts

[Cynthia 89]

Yeah the two main trolls on TTD (whom everyone knows) are in the thread Tbh I had wished for some more interesting technical and gameplay discussion on the execution part of the stroke (including how to play against it) but the trolls have just derailed it completely.

Just call anyone who disagrees with a troll
Oh yeah that is so mature
You got caught posting pure nonsense & got caught & now trying so hard to have your cluless buddies like NextLevel, Tony's TableTennis save your behind

Agree that table tennis is incredibly technical and there are a lot of minute details that normal people will miss. On serves, an upwards movement can be underspin if it brushes through the bottom of the ball (like in Schlager's explanation),

Yes it can. But ball has to be contacted up front for creating back spin if your racket is moving upwards.
In the case of coach Meng the racket contacts the ball on the back keft & swipes left & up
Noway can it be underspin

and a downwards movement can be topspin if it brushed across the back of the ball.

NO That is the classic side-chop motion & it is underspin (not the case here as the racket is moving upwards & sideways & so the video is side top)

[Slice Anti]

Reference the video subtitles for your claim that the coach is being misrepresented.

I think you are twisting what James Z was saying. As I saw it he only said the traslator "may" be making a mistake.
But regardless James Z clearly said the coach is wrong if the coach claims there is backspin

I have quoted the aspects of the subtitles that stated his intent.

You are a mind reader now ?

Stop trying to explain my purported confusion. Quote what the coach said that gives you insight into his intent since you are claiming I misunderstand what the coach is claiming to do. He points out clearly that what he calls a regular Chiquita comes over the top of the ball to generate topspin. He is deliberately not playing over the top of the ball and emphasizes that in the part of the video to which I referred you.

Again you are putting words into James Z's mouth. James Z neevr ever said the coach was was coming over the top the ball

The main point of calling it a backspin Chiquita is that it doesn't have a topspin orientation - there are many sidespin balls that do have a topspin orientation

But that does not mean they MUST have backspin. That is absurd

That said, we need to separate what you think about the physics

But the physis cannot be separated from what exactly is happening.

[Lucille]

I'm not high level,

No kidding

when a super coach (provincial head coach in China) tells me it is possible. I listen and learn

Nothing wrong with that.
But it is stupid to claim that every coach is right 100% of the time

This is the same as the time when I posted, usatt 1500 trying to correct me on technical part of table tennis.
well,

So you never make mistakes ?
Just because a suppoedly 1500 player corrected you, are you going to just dismiss it just because he is (supposedly) 1500 ?

James is like 1500 and trying to correct 3000 level players/coaches.

So you know for sure James is 1500 & that is his highest ever rating ?
You are a pathalogical liar
Again even if he is only 1100 how does it really matter ?
So what you ar saying is that the 100s of clubs & training centers worldwide that use barriers & cardboard dividers are idiots & you (Tony's Table Tennis ) are not ?
I will let the reader of thi sforum be a judge of that

Nothing wrong with the video,

Nothing is of course wrong with the video & the coach does give good information about the differences between the two ypes of chiquitas.
The only problem is the stupidity of claiimg that there is back spin whereas it is just heavy side spin

it has everything wrong with low level players think they know better than proper experts (especially high level coaches in the world) and he even claims the high level coach can be wrong too.
Okay. yeah, they all wrong lol

James Z was not the only person who disagrees with the coach on that.
Lazer, Kopp & broeknball & about 5 othe rposters here in this forum disagree with your nonsense

Also are you saying that no coach is ever wrong in any sport ?
Talk about being delusional

[Lucille]

Monday at 4:19 PM #65

No backspin
Just heavy side spin and some top spin

Incorrect. There is heavy backspin with some side spin, but 0 topspin on this ball. Really letting your table tennis knowledge shine there huh?
You may ask, how do I know? Because if you look really carefully and slow the footage down, he contacts the bottom side of the ball with the same angle you would essentially slice the ball and doesn't go up but instead sideways. Because he is contacting the bottom of the ball AND not going in an upwards motion (at least on the contact), underspin is made.

No the coach does not contact the bottom side of the ball. That is rubbish.
He contacts the back left of ball. Yes he contacts the bottom half of the ball but not under thee ball.
His racket never moving under the ball & the racket is moving sideways. Even if you make the ridiculous claim that the racket is not moving upwards, the racket is only moving sideways but never under & forward.

[Romero]

I was reading this thread in TTDaily.
I noticed that there was a post by UpSideDownCarl stating that he was essentially agreeing with James z, Kopp, Lazer & BrokenBall and stated that there cannot be backspin & it is only side spin.
However relentless bullying by NextLevel, Tony's TableTEnnis, Blahness, ttMonster etc has forced UpSideDownCarl to change his mind & he actually deleted the post where he was agreeing with Lazer & James Z etc.
Amazing how even posters like UpsideDownCarl can be brainwashed.

But the point is that it is sad that UpSideDownCarl just deleted his post in shame . He could have just explained why he reversed his position
That sounds prteey sleazy especially for a forum moderator

Oh Well

[James Z]

1. No, the backspin does not get reversed.

So if the spin does not get reversed, what spin is on the returned ball again in this case then ?
Louder...............I can't hear you

2. The trajectory of the swing is just as important as the contact point in determining the outgoing spin. I am trying to educate and illuminate here, not confuse. Contact point is important but a swing path is just as important, sometimes even more important

But the coach clearly explained where he was contacting the ball. And the swing path is upwards and sidewards.
It just is not possible to create back spin with the contact point sated by the coach (back left bottom)

3. To generate topspin on a ball you hit at the bottom with an inverted racket, you need to come over or swing with intent to come over the top of it.

Ok So ? Isn't bottom (left) is where the coach is contacting the ball & pulling up for side spin & top spin ?

4. Your opinion is understood, but blocking topspin balls into the net/table with open rackets is not what most people think about when they are looking at topspin balls,

But I clearly explained why in my deleted posting yesterday when i posted the link to my webpage which clearly explains basics of spin & sidespin
https://tacticaltabletennis.blogspot.co ... index.html
Most people incorrectly assume it has to be ONLY incoming backspin for the returned ball to go into bottom of the net, as is the case here.

Motion is sideways not upwards.

Nope
Motion is both sideways & upwards
Even if it is ONLY sidewars , backspin is NOT passible with the contact point on the back & left

Also contacting side under.
I know contact is side under to the left.

I have said it 10 times so far.
As I said even if the motion was ONLY sideways it will only create side spin & not back spin because in this case the racket is definitely moving upwards unless you want to make also ridiculous claim that the racket is moving side & down.
No way can back spin be produced with racket moving up or side or both for the given contact point which we both agree

[Okafor]

Wednesday at 5:02 PM #103
Most of the "backspin" on the ball is a result of the backspin on the incoming serve.

OMG
Are you still going to continue to insist that the chiquita reverses incoming backspin and generates its own back spin with the ball contacted on the back and moving upwards ?

That is truly pathetic

[Emily Tos]

Tuesday at 3:34 PM #101
I am inclined to trust the auto translate on the video or rather videos ( there is 2nd one where they are calling this nomuta instead of chiquita or something ) . Thee reason is simply because its hard to make any logical sense of the comment... the questioner asks is it really underspin or mostly side spin .. meaning he or she thinks it is side under and asking which is the dominant component .. in any banana flick there is a lot of side spin involved no question ... but the response is self contradictory .. it first says its strong sidespin and then goes on to say if you think its sidespin then you will miss ... so it is sidespin but you cannot return it thinking it is side spin ? does that make sense to you ...

So you are completely confused and are not sure whether it is sidespin or back spin
Why don't you make a simple common sense appraoch & figure that out for yourselves.
However since you have difficulty understanding basics of spin, I realize it is will still be hard for you

one can say it is sides spin but a different sidespin than what one is led to believe .. that might make some sense ..

Why not just admit you do not completely understand sidespin or you do not know the difference between side spin & back spin

in line with what most of us have seen in practical situations ... not just theoretical discussions.

No what James Z is talking about is clearly a practical situation but that is something you & NextLevel refuse to admit.
Why not admit the simple dfact that you thought it was backspin because you saw the return by coach Meng's partner go into the net.
it had been explained to you by James Z that the ball went into the net not because of backspin but because coach Meng;s partner angled his racket AGAINST the incoming side spin.

[Damilola Osas]

Tuesday at 2:19 PM #96
The thing is this: no one is arguing that the ball lacks sidespin.

Hello ,
Now you are the dictator speaking for everybody ? REALLY

That is the idiotic argument that you (NExtLevel), ttonster, Blahness , Tony's TableTennis are making.

Not the folks like Lazer, Kopp , ttArc etc who know what the hell is going on.
The fact of the matter is that the ball has heavy side spin as well as some top spin. No back spin

[Tanit Tarina]

This is the same as the time when I posted, usatt 1500 trying to correct me on technical part of table tennis.
well,

It is quite interesting because Tony's TableTennis knows James Z is NOT 1500 or 1200 but much much higher.
Akk you need to do is go to the USATT ratings database & check his rating.

But that is not the issue. The isue is why Tony's TableTennis has to make a fool of himself posting such lies.
Regardless, even if James Z is only around 1200 , as Lucille said, what is wrong with a 1200 player disputing the claims of a 2900 player ?
Don't 2900 players never make mistakes in life ?
The sad part is that Tony's TableTennis wanted to insult James Z but ended up insulting lower levell players rated 1200 to 1500 as if their opinions are ALWAYS wrong no matter what

[Tack Spin]

This is the same as the time when I posted, usatt 1500 trying to correct me on technical part of table tennis.
well,

UpSideDownCarl is the moderator of the TTDaily forum
See what he says below

on May 3, 2023 #101
in 1998, when James Z stopped playing in sanctioned USATT tournaments, which, I believe was after the aspect ratio rule he likes to talk about from 1998, James Z was a decently high level player. I can't remember what the rating was. But if my memory, from years ago is close enough to the mark, it was somewhere between 1950 and 2200.

UpsideDownCarl's explanation should expose what a sick & compulsive troll bully Tony's TableTennis is

[Omoni Chinonso]

on Wednesday at 5:02 PM #103
There is a reason you have been banned from multiple forums, and it is because you have been shown to have very low understanding of table tennis and refused to explain the phenomena you see and focused on repeating the limitations of what you already know..

So you want to ban BrokenBAll from TTDaily forum just because he has very low understanding of tabletennis or because he disagrees with you ?
You are not a moderator of TTDaily. One of yoru favorite pastimes in MyTT forum is theratening to ban posters every chance you get to try to mark your territory like a dog peeing on a fire hydrant

Wednesday at 5:02 PM #103
As for the ball having backspin, I have written enough on the thread for anyone to understand my answer - there are two separate questions - does having backspin mean being literally a backspin ball, and does having backspin mean that that is the conceptual approach to returning the ball. My main point is the latter.

In other words you finally admit that there is no real back spin in the chiquita in the video dicussed in this thread & the back spin exists only in your fantasies ?

Wednesday at 5:02 PM #103
Most of the "backspin" on the ball is a result of the backspin on the incoming serve.

As someone else asked you, how can an incoming backspin can be reversed into a backspin with a stroke in which your racket is moving upwards & contact being made on the back of the ball ?

[Loop Lad]

Jul 24, 2023 #60
May be I have an inkling of what’s going on … …

Sorry NO

Jul 24, 2023 #60
with all that he has claimed starting from how how he has run tons of high level tourneys , …

James Z never ever claimed he ran "tons" of "high level" tourneys. Can you please post proof of that ?
He did say he ran "many" tournaments including several state championships
I do not understand how it got twisted into "tons" of "high level" tourneys.
As I see it, a state championship is a reasonably high level tourney,
And James Z ran 7 or 8 tournaments where total prize money was at least $1000 & averaged $2000
And how many tournaments in USA do you know that offer this kind of purse ?
Oh BTW & FWIW , James Z is also designed & administered one of the biggest weekly leagues in the world starting in 2007 with average of 50 players & 6 to 7 divisions & this league is still going strong though he is no longer in that state.
But feel free to continue to twist the truth to display your being petty & vindictive with no research . Of course other forum members in ITTF worship forums will believe any nonsense you post.

Jul 24, 2023 #60
, banned people who don’t obey his command to use or not use certain rubbers …

This was already explained many times.
Even clubs affiliated with USATT do not have to follow USATT rules & regulations 100%
Even national affiliates of ITTF do not have to follow ITTF rules & regulations 100%. This is also how the two color rule is null and void in all USATT sanctioned tournaments of all levels since 2000

Jul 24, 2023 #60
to how everybody who don’t bow to him is discriminating against people who use long pips …/quote]
Does this statement even make sense (unless of course you are wildly lashing out) ?

Jul 24, 2023 #60
he cannot be proved wrong about anything he says related to table tennis . …

From what I have seen over the years , he has apologized many times when he made mistakes.
But let simple facts stops you from wildly lashing out with zero substance

Jul 24, 2023 #60
Because that would be a serious disqualification for somebody who wants to start his own little cult within table tennis … “Let’s make table tennis great again !”…. …

Nice.. You want to pull US presidential politics into table tennis to insult someone ? REALLY

Jul 24, 2023 #60
insulting everybody who don’t agree with him

Like you are doing here ? LOL

Jul 24, 2023 #60
s with scant regard for what people are really saying … because he thinks he can speak them to existence …

If you look at this thread, at least 3 or 4 other regular posters including the ttDaily forum moderator UpSideDownCarl think what Blahness claims in his OP is nonsense

[tyre3333]

Jul 24, 2023 #63
I did not imply any political affiliation

James Z neevr said you did.
He just explained he was not affiliated with any political group

Jul 24, 2023 #63
I did not imply any political affiliation or ridicule any political group .

What political group does the person you compared James Z belong to now ?

Jul 24, 2023 #63
just pointed out the obvious behavioral similarities with another popular personality . .

I do not see what all this has to do with chiquita in the video.
Juat because James Z disagreed with you , you are now going to compare him to political persons or with Hitler etc ? REALLY ?

Jul 24, 2023 #63
The similarity in the egomania , the tendency to ridicule and attack personally anybody with opposite point of view,

LOL
Are you not doing the same thing (that you claim James Z is doing) , by belittling James Z just because he disagrees with you ?

[Tima Simi]

Yesterday at 12:12 AM #104
This is not a chiquita but I thought it was worth illustrating the difference between a side underspin ball and a side topspin ball with a similar swing.

[Tima Simi]

Yesterday at 12:12 AM #104
This is not a chiquita but I thought it was worth illustrating the difference between a side underspin ball and a side topspin ball with a similar swing.

I can't hear you .........louder please
What did you say ....... This is not a chiquita
Why are you trying confuse readers ?

[Nomfundo Owusu]

I can't hear you .........louder please
What did you say ....... This is not a chiquita
Why are you trying confuse readers ?

LOL
This was was explained to NextLevel about 10 times
In the chiquita shown in Coach Meng's video, the ball is contacted on the back left & racket is moving up & sideways
In this video , which you state yourself first & foremost that this is NOT a chiquita, the racket is moving under & forward for back spin (first shot returned by the oppoennt) & mostly sideways & up for top-side.

[Cynthia 89]

LOL
This was was explained to SpamTroller NextLevel about 10 times
In the chiquita shown in Coach Meng's video, the ball is contacted on the back left & racket is moving up & sideways
In this video , which you state yourself first & foremost that this is NOT a chiquita, the racket is moving under & forward for back spin (first shot returned by the oppoennt) & mostly sideways & up for top-side.

Also as you can see, in the return of second shot , the receiver makes the same mistake as the reeciver is coach Meng's video
Both are angling the racket in the wrong direction
However in the case of Coach Meng's receiver, the ball goes into the net because of excessive side spin (not back spin)
In this video (posted by SpamTroller NextLevel to mislead everyone) the ball flies off the table because of excessive top spin as well as side spin

In Coach Meng's cae if the reciver had angled the racket towards his left (Coach Meng's right) it would have landed on Coach Meng's side for a correct return
In this video by SpamTroller NextLevel, if the receiver had angled the racket towards his left but also had closed his racket , the ball would have landed safely on the table.But it was a good sequence (I doubt if by design or accident) in SpamTroller NextLevels's video for the player to win the point