The Myth of the 40mm ball and TV
Terry Canup
relationship to more/better TV coverage. This relationship is pure
myth.
By way of credentials behind this statement, I was a television producer
for many years. I worked with ESPN, SPN, CTV, NBC, PBS among many
others. I produced the 1981 US TT Open. I pitched TT on TV to many,
many sponsors over a lot of years.
We have heard from the ITTF that it is TV that is the driving force
behind the push for 40 mm. All this says to me is that the marketing
person working with the ITTF & dealing with TV is not very good. There
is concrete behind my assumption.
In all the years that I pushed TT on TV, not once did I hear from any
executive, anywhere, that changing the ball size would increase our
chances for coverage. Frankly, they could care less if we used a ball,
a puck, or a birdie! The only thing they were/are interested in is
"will it make us money". Period.
Anyone ever been to a Major League Baseball game? Ever sit in a huge
stadium? Do you understand that the relative size of the baseball is
MUCH SMALLER than the relative size of a TT ball to a spectator at a TT
match? Anyone ever have complaints about seeing a baseball at a game?
I never have. The argument is incredibly weak.
For heaven sakes, in Europe, they broadcast table tennis ON THE
RADIO!!! Exactly how large does the ball have to be to be seen on the
radio anyway?????
The answer is not a bigger ball, the answer is simple, better
marketing. ABC certainly never complained about ball size when they
used to broadcast the Worlds in the US. TV execs at ESPN do not
complain about the ball size when they CURRENTLY BROADCAST the sport in
Asia, or South America.
What they want is to make money. TV's job is not promoting sport, any
sport. It is to make the producers money. A producer will broadcast
something as absurd as "street luge", or competitive bungee jumping if
they can make money at it. How many fishing shows are aired where there
are no, or few, fish???
This whole 40 mm ball thing is just an diversion to take the heat off of
someone who was unable to market the sport. It would not surprise me if
the ITTF was not soon looking for a new marketing person to interact
with TV. Any network would jump at the chance to broadcast TT right
now, all you have to do is "show them the money", you will find any
resistance disappear instantly.
Perhaps I was misleading when I said the 40 mm ball issue was a myth, I
should have said it was a ruse or even closer, a hoax.
Congratulations to the countries of the ITTF that saw through this smoke
and mirrors approach. Instead of us spending millions on changing our
equipment, let's spend a fraction of that to hire somebody that actually
knows what they are doing in marketing.
Terry
Russ Jordan
<canu...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
Terry,
You could not be more correct! (I can't believe I just said that--
wonders never cease!) I totally agree with everything you just stated. I
think I'll go buy a lottery ticket now!
Russell Jordan
Waters, Julian
you say. Golf is another sport where a tiny ball is ridiculously
difficult to see on TV as it hurtles through the air off the tee, yet
there is a glut of gold on TV.
Most of the ITTF people who voted for the larger ball must be totally
out of touch with actually playing the game. I doubt if half of these
geezers have even picked up a bat in years, let alone tried the bigger
ball. I imagine half of them must be dried up losers like Y.C. Lee, a
guy who spent more energy seeking out "unapproved" video cameras in the
audience than he did watching the matches at the recent U.S. Open.
The current players -- the Kongs, Waldners Samsonovs etc should have
equal votes on these issues. Do any actual current players have ANY say
at all?
Julian Waters
Waters, Julian
Waters, Julian wrote:
>
> Terry -- You are right on the money. I absolutely agree with everything
> you say. Golf is another sport where a tiny ball is ridiculously
> difficult to see on TV as it hurtles through the air off the tee, yet
> there is a glut of gold* on TV.
>
> Most of the ITTF people who voted for the larger ball must be totally
> out of touch with actually playing the game. I doubt if half of these
> geezers have even picked up a bat in years, let alone tried the bigger
> ball. I imagine half of them must be dried up losers like Y.C. Lee, a
> guy who spent more energy seeking out "unapproved" video cameras in the
> audience than he did watching the matches at the recent U.S. Open.
>
> The current players -- the Kongs, Waldners, Samsonovs etc should have
Nettadave
sustained breakthru of TT coverage on TV- unfortunately with the vote only a
few short of change, and with the new president pushing for change, it is
potentially going to be arm-twisting time. (think about how the olympic site
selections were made)
We need to do whatever can be done to make this issue, and the real
threat of it passing in the next go-round, clear to the forgotten and/or
mislead players - who may naively either be falsely relieved that somehow the
40mm ball is 'dead' (if they ever heard about it it all) or believe that 'the
(ITTF) leaders must know best" when this is a big experiment covering the lack
(at least so far) of inovative and "roll-up-your-sleaves" grassroots promotion
for participation in the sport .
Unfortunately, if we do kill this thing, for a while, the powers that be
might use it as an excuse for any future lack of accomplishments in promoting
the sport, though I must say the main responsibility belongs at the local
levels with every club and current player.
I too have worked with TV people as color commentator for a couple major
events covered by local/ regional sports networks, and have been a close-in
observer around many others while producing videotaped coverage.
Camera angles, background colors editing and match quality are more
important than a 2mm increase in the ball size to the 'viewability' of the
sport.
When I've shown high quality video tapes of TT in public places to promote
the sport, if the 'action' is good and the production is adequate to properly
display it, the 'passerbys' who stop to watch have positive comments if
they've played the sport at least a little - enough to realize it's challenges.
If you show a badly filmed tape of an uncompetitive match people will of
course quickly walk away- the equivilent of switching the channel from a boring
program.
If you show good action, a small but significant percentage of passerbys
will stop and watch and make possitive comments about the sport. A few may even
ask "where do you learn to play like that" - my favorite question (as a coach
and club promoter).
I can't recall anyone every saying "too bad the ball isn't 2mm larger !"
If this is such a great idea, lets try it for special events or for doubles
or hardbat or seniors play and get the new balls into the market place where
the players can decide if they realy like them before they eliminate the 38mm
ball.
Even if it were an improvement for TV (which is doubtful) that doesn't
mean it's better for club and serious recreation players.
Like "astroturf" (tm) (thin green carpet laid on an asphalt base) for
Football - which looks better on TV, and allows for indoor stadiums and longer
seasons in northern states, but results in rug-burns and more painful and
career ending injuries for the players, than good natural turf, this idea has
not been promoted because the players want it - or will benefit from it - when
few have even been able to try the ball out and those who have are mixed in
their opinions. "NETTADAVE"
Terry said:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Connecticut Table Tennis Club Info Web Address is:
www.members.tripod.com/netta_ct/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gerald D. Williams
We've get to realize that this is the main issue in TT today instead
of arguing about lesser important ratings schemes, etc.
A serious proposal to limit the ball to the more recreational events
(on a trial basis) would let the ITTF save face. In the meantime we
could work on ways to improve TV coverage in major events.
If only the ITTF was as good at promoting TT to the networks as it was
at selling the 40mm ball to the public, we'd be much better off.
On 04 Aug 1999 23:06:55 GMT, nett...@aol.comno-spam (Nettadave)
wrote:
3stars
Terry Canup wrote:
A bunch of garbage.
Do you know any body of people that may be smarter than you are?
I do...The ITTF.
You stated the obvious, Think beyond something as small as money and
consider the greater good for the world of ping pong. Consider the
motivation behind the thinkers, and powers involved in puting this proposal
into action. Ponder on who the rule affects for the better or worse.
Don't think too long about it, you might hurt yourself.
Better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all
doubt.
I think I might live to regret that statement =)
3
Berndt Mann
Traditionalist! Listen up very carefully, because we don't
want to have to say this again: it's not the floggin' 40
mm ball which will save or sink table tennis--I personally
don't give a rat's rump about the 40 mm ball one way or
another.
The real problem, moy droogs and moya droogettes, is quite
simply that the ITTF does not now have, and since is
beginning has never had, either the cojones or common sense
to establish equipment standards which make any freakin'
sense. Hell, they didn't bother to have any fruggin'
standards whatsoever for racket materials or racket
coverings till 1959--look it up.
While even Marty'll admit 10% of the modern sponge game can
be sublime and admittedly is played by sublimely talented
athletes, the other 90% resembles more closely the St.
Valentine's Day Massacre--quick bursts of gunfire, a sharp
staccato "Cho!", blood everywhere, and then it's over.
If y'all want any more than a few thousand players in the
U.S. to play this frippin' game and anybody at all to watch
it, I strongly suggest bogart the 40 mm ball, kiss Tango
Extremely goodbye, give your Son of Feint Long a decent
burial, say no offense to your Juic Offense, run down to
your nearest pawn shop, pick up a 3-ply Hock No. 74, Stiga
Allround, or Brendling A3LL, slap some Leyland on that
sucker, get out that old Lotte Lenya 78 of "Mackie Messer"
(while Weilling away the time), relearn (in case you've
forgotten) how to smoke, drink and curse, and join the men
and women of good will on this grand planet in the noble
task of reestablishing an honest game for (hopefully one
day) an honest day's pay.
Viva la retro revolucion! Hardbat go bragh!
Berndt the bibulously indignant
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Chip Mattox
3stars <3st...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:37A8EE16...@sprintmail.com...
>
>
> Terry Canup wrote:
>
> A bunch of garbage.
>
> Do you know any body of people that may be smarter than you are?
> I do...The ITTF.
>
> You stated the obvious, Think beyond something as small as money and
> consider the greater good for the world of ping pong. Consider the
proposal
> into action. Ponder on who the rule affects for the better or worse.
>
> Don't think too long about it, you might hurt yourself.
>
> Better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all
> doubt.
>
>
> I think I might live to regret that statement =)
>
> 3
>
> You are probably a being little harsh...
a LOT of people subscribed to "bigger ball/better visibility/more TV idea"
as the main reason for 40 mm ball consideration.
Lets face it-no matter who you are or what your style-the game has gotten
hard to appreciate for a non player.
(anyone remember the "one color days"...world class studs making amateurish
looking mistakes -time after time-
If you brought a newbie to watch THAT-what could you say-NOTHING- it made
the sport look bad)
I appreciate a good third ball attack and sneaky serves as well as
anyone-but a stone bone STEADY diet of that and the high risk style-is not
all that attractive.
Maybe I am speaking out of turn since I have never tried the 40mm ball-but
anything that increased the rallies(not to the point of expedite of
course-no one wants to watch paint dry) and encouraged more Matthew Syed
types... is bound to help the sport!
chip
>
John Starr
>
> Many true statements.
> Terry
Mark this day down, I agree with Terry's whole memo. And i still
haven't figured out where this mythical TV audience is going to come
from. If they aren't watching now, how will they know the ball
changed? Is the ITTF going to finance a huge ad campaign that says "Hey
tv sports watchers, we realized you weren't savvy enough to understand
table tennis so we made it slower and easier to play. Won't you please
write to your local network affiliate and ask them to show some table
tennis?"
John the Younger
Dmitry M. Medvedev
> While even Marty'll admit 10% of the modern sponge game can
> be sublime and admittedly is played by sublimely talented
> athletes, the other 90% resembles more closely the St.
> Valentine's Day Massacre--quick bursts of gunfire, a sharp
> staccato "Cho!", blood everywhere, and then it's over.
There are millions of players in (sponge) table tennis, which all
have good rackets, but only very small percent of them becomes
good. You have to agree that these people have something more
than just rackets.
>
> If y'all want any more than a few thousand players in the
> U.S. to play this frippin' game and anybody at all to watch
I don't think ITTF thinks about the USA, which is maybe their
mistake. Can you explain why people in other countries play
this ... sponge game but americans don't? As for watching,
I can assure you that there are spectators. I saw them myself.
Dmitry
Dmitry M. Medvedev
>
> The 40 mm ball is not about ball visibility on TV!
> *** **** ********** **
> (sorry...sometimes I feel like shouting!)
I think you are mistaken. To a large degree it is about
more TV coverage. You should not believe all ITTF is
writing.
> Selected quotes from ITTF site: http://www.ittf.com/news/news991.html
>
> "...there is concern about the lack of attractiveness of our
> sport...very
> little opportunity for the spectator to see what is happening, to
> understand... (this) resulted, of course, from the development of
> spinny, speedy racket coverings... The obvious solution is to control
> those racket coverings so as to reduce the speed and spin slightly...
> ...we decided first to try a different approach. ***That is why the 40
> mm ball is under study...*** (emphasis mine)
>
> It's not the TV camera!!! It's the lack of spectator appeal!!! The
> ITTF doesn't seem to have the b*lls to cut racket coverings back to
> something reasonable THEIR analysis, not mine)...so suggestions like
> changing the ball and changing the net height are considered...
>
> My objections to the "modern" game are aesthetic...if you like it the
> way it is, that's your choice...be my guest...but it's
> BORING...(usually). Granted, matches between super-stars can be
> exciting...but any newcomer, watching even two above average-rated
> players can neither understand, comprehend or enthuse.
They will not be able to understand slower game too, as long as it is the
game of spin.
> Argue all you want about the 40mm ball...but, at least, argue about
> whether it will achieve its stated purpose..to slow the sponge/inverted
> game down to make it understandable.
>
> I, personally, think it's not going to accomplish much, if anything,
> except to slow down HardBat, which is fine the way it is.
ITTF does not think about hardbat at all. It is not the sport ITTF is in
charge of.
> The expected
> response by today's rubber-glue-freaks and the manufacturers will be to
> further modify equipment to restore and increase speed, pace, and spin.
I think you are right here.
> HardBat players, faced with it's soon-to-be, stringent, blade and rubber
> restrictions will perforce refrain from the arms race...
Once again - hardbat is not the sport supervised by ITTF.
Dmitry
John Grinnell
>
> In article <37A881E8...@hal-pc.org>, Terry Canup
> <canu...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
> Terry,
> You could not be more correct! (I can't believe I just said that--
> wonders never cease!) I totally agree with everything you just stated. I
> think I'll go buy a lottery ticket now!
>
> Russell Jordan
>
> > relationship to more/better TV coverage. This relationship is pure
> > myth.
> >
The 40 mm ball is not about ball visibility on TV!
*** **** ********** **
(sorry...sometimes I feel like shouting!)
Selected quotes from ITTF site: http://www.ittf.com/news/news991.html
"...there is concern about the lack of attractiveness of our
sport...very
little opportunity for the spectator to see what is happening, to
understand... (this) resulted, of course, from the development of
spinny, speedy racket coverings... The obvious solution is to control
those racket coverings so as to reduce the speed and spin slightly...
...we decided first to try a different approach. ***That is why the 40
mm ball is under study...*** (emphasis mine)
It's not the TV camera!!! It's the lack of spectator appeal!!! The
ITTF doesn't seem to have the b*lls to cut racket coverings back to
something reasonable THEIR analysis, not mine)...so suggestions like
changing the ball and changing the net height are considered...
My objections to the "modern" game are aesthetic...if you like it the
way it is, that's your choice...be my guest...but it's
BORING...(usually). Granted, matches between super-stars can be
exciting...but any newcomer, watching even two above average-rated
players can neither understand, comprehend or enthuse.
Argue all you want about the 40mm ball...but, at least, argue about
whether it will achieve its stated purpose..to slow the sponge/inverted
game down to make it understandable.
I, personally, think it's not going to accomplish much, if anything,
except to slow down HardBat, which is fine the way it is. The expected
response by today's rubber-glue-freaks and the manufacturers will be to
further modify equipment to restore and increase speed, pace, and spin.
HardBat players, faced with it's soon-to-be, stringent, blade and rubber
restrictions will perforce refrain from the arms race...
John the Traditionalist
John the Elder
John R. Miller
<jgri...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> In article <37A881E8...@hal-pc.org>, Terry Canup
>> <canu...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Much has been said about the potential of the 40 mm ball and it's
>> > relationship to more/better TV coverage. This relationship is pure
>> > myth.
>> >
>Doesn't ANYONE bother to go to the source...the ITTF statement?
>
> The 40 mm ball is not about ball visibility on TV!
> *** **** ********** **
>(sorry...sometimes I feel like shouting!)
>
> Selected quotes from ITTF site: http://www.ittf.com/news/news991.html
>
> "...there is concern about the lack of attractiveness of our
>sport...very
>little opportunity for the spectator to see what is happening, to
>understand... (this) resulted, of course, from the development of
>spinny, speedy racket coverings... The obvious solution is to control
>those racket coverings so as to reduce the speed and spin slightly...
> ...we decided first to try a different approach. ***That is why the 40
>mm ball is under study...*** (emphasis mine)
>
>It's not the TV camera!!! It's the lack of spectator appeal!!!
Somebody thinks it's the TV. From Nando's sportserver originally from
Agence France-Press
----
TABLE TENNIS: New millennium, new balls
Copyright © 1999 Nando Media
Copyright © 1999 Agence France-Press
EINDHOVEN, Netherlands (August 1, 1999 3:15 p.m. EDT http://www.sportserver.com)
The 1999 World Table Tennis Championships beginning Monday is set to be
the last to be played with the standard 38mm ball.
A report prepared by scientists for the game's governing body the
International Table Tennis Federation (ITTF) has urged them to adopt the
executive committee's proposal for a 40mm ball by the time the first world
championships of the new Millennium take place.
Delegates arriving for the world championships were greeted with a report
prepared for the Executive Committee by the ITTF's Education and Research
department in Ottawa.
The author of the report Mikael Andersson, who has undertaken comparative
studies between the two balls, is a firm advocate of change.
Andersson concludes: "A new 40mm ball will mean a lot of positive changes
for our sport. The 40mm ball is slower, generates less spin and is more
visible for players, spectators and media."
Citing research done in Beijing, Andersson claims the new ball is 4
percent slower than the 38mm equivalent, while similar research in Ottawa
claims an 8 per cent difference.
While Andersson's report is in theory supposed to be an impartial
presentation of scientific facts it is presented in a brochure which
leaves executive committee members little doubt how to vote on the matter.
Slogans like "bigger is better", "positive change", "change is good", "new
Millennium" and "take the lead" should get the message across.
And if any dyed-in-the-wool opponents of change remain unconvinced there
remains one even more persuasive slogan - "More TV coverage".
Seven major TV networks, canvassed on their opinion, have all come down
firmly on the side of the new all-singing, all-dancing larger ball.
----
Note both that the official report specifically mentions visibility to
media (surely TV) and that someone (who?) canvassed TV networks. I don't
know who Agence France-Press talked with, but the implication is surely
that it was someone with the ITTF.
From a later Nando report via Agence France-Press
Table tennis' world governing body narrowly rejected a proposal to make
the sport more spectator friendly by introducing bigger balls here on
Tuesday.
...
And Adham Sharara, elected earlier Tuesday as the body's new president,
told manufacturers that they should already start planning for the new
ball as it would inevitably be adopted in Malaysia.
Making the ball more visible is seen as vital if the game is to become
more attractive to spectators, and more importantly, television.
...
[Sharara] said: "It's very important for manufacturers to realize the
direction we are going is to make the ball bigger and more visible.
Who sees it as vital isn't specified, but we're not making it up here on
the newsgroup, and the implication of the article is that it's Sharara.
Notice also that television is specifically described as more important
than spectators (presumably television spectators are considered more
important than live spectators, although that's being too generous -- they
really mean television revenue is more important than spectators period).
Notice that players, whether elite or recrational, aren't even in the
equation.
It is possible that the 40mm ball will make the game more fun, but it
certainly seems that that would be an unintended side effect of the ITTF's
fiddling. This worries me. It's analogous to letting a doctor perform
some (destructive and invasive) tests on you (which she's doing to satisfy
her scientific curiosity) and hoping that it might accidentally correct a
malady that you haven't actually noticed you suffer from, but which some
of your friends say you have.
John Grinnell
>
> John Grinnell wrote:
>
> >
> > The 40 mm ball is not about ball visibility on TV!
>
> I think you are mistaken. To a large degree it is about
> more TV coverage. You should not believe all ITTF is
> writing.
>
> Dmitry
Any suggestions as to *who* I *should* believe?
Larry? Terry? S-Jan? The Kennedy Committee? The New World Order?
International Bankers and the IMF? How about The Elders of Zion?
Who's in charge of Big Balls? Who's Pushing it? Why?
Incidentally, I'm no stranger to conspiracies...for instance, the Media
would have us believe that Donnie and Marie Osmond are two different
people!
Not to mention that the Christian Coalition and the cyrillic
abbreviation for the USSR ("CCCP") *both* share initial initials..."CC"!
Gotta'go..it sounds like someone is walking on the side-walk in front of
my house...shhhhhh!
Careful...
Jxxx the Exxxx
(just in case this call is being traced...)
John Grinnell
>
> Berndt Mann wrote:
>
> > While even Marty'll admit 10% of the modern sponge game can
> > be sublime and admittedly is played by sublimely talented
>
> There are millions of players in (sponge) table tennis, which all
> have good rackets, but only very small percent of them becomes
> good. You have to agree that these people have something more
> than just rackets.
"These people..." Which people??? The talented ten per cent or the
other ninety?
>
> >
> > If y'all want any more than a few thousand players in the
> > U.S. to play this frippin' game and anybody at all to watch
>
> I don't think ITTF thinks about the USA, which is maybe their
> mistake. Can you explain why people in other countries play
> this ... sponge game but americans don't?
As for watching, I can assure you that there are spectators. I saw them
myself.
Dmitry...did you check to see if it's *always* the same set of extras,
watching? Remember "the Truman Show"...sometimes you can't believe
everything you see... or read!
J***the Anonymous (Careful...!)
>
> Dmitry
John Grinnell
> >It's not the TV camera!!! It's the lack of spectator appeal!!!
>
> Somebody thinks it's the TV. From Nando's sportserver originally from
> Agence France-Press
> ----
> TABLE TENNIS: New millennium, new balls <snip>
>
> From a later Nando report via Agence France-Press
>
<snip>
>
> Making the ball more visible is seen as vital if the game is to become
> more attractive to spectators, and more importantly, television.
(who said this?... and where? This line sounds like NANDO's analysis
and interpertation)
> Who sees it
The "it" (increased ball visibility) is vital to *making the game more
attractive*, not "making the game more easily televised"... so,
>
> as vital isn't specified, but we're not making it up here on
> the newsgroup, and the implication of the article is that it's Sharara.
follow the logic now, with the antecedants correctly determined...
> Notice also that (MAKING THE GAME MORE ATTRACTIVE TO) television is specifically > described as more important than (MAKING THE GAME MORE ATTRACTIVE TO) spectators > (presumably television spectators are considered more
> important than live spectators, although that's being too generous -- they
> really mean television revenue is more important than spectators period).
> Notice that (MAKING THE GAME MORE ATTRACTIVE TO) players, whether elite or
> recrational, aren't (isn't)even in the equation.
Give me a break! Sponge/inverted technology is not adopted by players
to make the game more FUN! It's adopted in self-defense! Each
"improvement" in technology simply confers additional non-skill-based
advantages to the user...which lasts only until his opponent adopts it
as well...
>
Perhaps the Big Ball Conspirators are mistakenly assuming that by making
the game more attractive to spectators, and by fostering television
broadcast of the sport, an increase in participation would result.
J*** the Rigorous (still avoiding notice)
Berndt Mann
chasm in my last bent scream on this thread. What I meant
to say was that (Marty Reisman said that) 10% of the sponge
game as played at the world class level can be sublime and
that world class players are "sublimely talented". I
didn't mean to imply by extention that everybody else who
plays with sponge will by simple virtue of that fact also
be or become "sublimely talented." Eight bottles of Great
Lakes Burning River and Ms. Lenya's surreal spooky charm
("you gentlemen best wipe that smile off your face--every
building in town is a flat one!") can have a deleterious
effect on one's editing ability.
Dmitry M. Medvedev, again correctly, points out that there
are millions of table tennis worldwide who play with sponge
but very few who are very good. Perhaps part of this
problem is that when you have approximately 406,872 (or
whatever) number of rubber combinations to choose from from
manufacturers who tout that the new improved Butterfly
Holocaust will make your loops incredibly spinny, the newer
improved short pipped Juic Flatliner will give you that one-
ball penhold kill you yourself would kill for, and the
newest improved street legal Tibhar Ass is Grass will still
enable your dyed-in-the-wool junk jockey to humiliate any
clueless glue fiend under 1800, it is little bloody wonder
why very few of the cupidinous players who believe this
nonsense will become "very good". Thirty years ago I was
a "pretty good" player myself, and although still
reasonably fast and graceful my timing isn't worth a
tinker's damn against all of this crap. Thus my "born
again" hardbat conversion.
As to the spectator question: in the past eight years
since I've resumed playing competitvely (after a 15 year
layoff due to working nights for a living) I've played in
tournaments in Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana, four Veterans'
World Championships, two U.S. Nationals and two U.S. Opens.
Just about everyone who watched these events, I'll bet you
dollars to doughnuts, were either players, family members
of players, or friends of players. Civilians in Las Vegas
or Fort Lauderdale don't seem to be dashing from their
blackjack tables or football-field long yachts to watch
those of us who compete at table tennis demonstrate what
(mostly) intelligent (definitely) high strung (quite often)
neurotic people who care about a sport can do over and
above writing passionate letters to Internet newsgroups.
Berndt the sleepy
john g. vos
The author above has a passionate penchant for prose (excuse the
alliteration). A writing style like that should be acknowledged --
Larry Hodges, please solicit this gentleman to write future articles for
the magazine!
Russ Jordan
> Russ Jordan wrote:
> >
> > In article <37A881E8...@hal-pc.org>, Terry Canup
> > <canu...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> >
> > Terry,
> > You could not be more correct! (I can't believe I just said that--
> > wonders never cease!) I totally agree with everything you just stated. I
> > think I'll go buy a lottery ticket now!
> >
> > Russell Jordan
> >
> > > Much has been said about the potential of the 40 mm ball and it's
> > > relationship to more/better TV coverage. This relationship is pure
> > > myth.
> > >
> Doesn't ANYONE bother to go to the source...the ITTF statement?
>
> The 40 mm ball is not about ball visibility on TV!
> *** **** ********** **
> (sorry...sometimes I feel like shouting!)
John,
Perhaps you did not see the ITTF's original report on the 40mm ball that
was presented to the NGBs. The report clearly stated that a major reason
for adopting the ball was to increase the sport's visibility in television
coverage, particularly in Europe. European interest in the sport and its
media coverage have decreased in the past few years. Many believe that by
making the ball larger, we will see this decreasing trend change.
>
> Selected quotes from ITTF site: http://www.ittf.com/news/news991.html
>
> "...there is concern about the lack of attractiveness of our
> sport...very
> little opportunity for the spectator to see what is happening, to
> understand... (this) resulted, of course, from the development of
> spinny, speedy racket coverings... The obvious solution is to control
> those racket coverings so as to reduce the speed and spin slightly...
> ...we decided first to try a different approach. ***That is why the 40
> mm ball is under study...*** (emphasis mine)
>
> It's not the TV camera!!! It's the lack of spectator appeal!!!
It is both, and the 40mm ball will do nothing to change either. For us to
assume that by slowing the game down that it will suddenly become
understandable to the average person, thereby increasing the sport's
popularity and appeal, is ridiculous. People with established lifestyles
will not change their opinion and actions simply because they have a new
found "understanding" of the sport. The sport cannot be understood unless
an individual has been a participant at a higher level than "Basement
Player." It is for this reason that we have to start with a new
generation of young people and affect their perception of the sport. We
can do this by introducing the sport to them in their schools at their
earliest educational levels. This process is not an overnight solution,
but it is the only way to truly change our sport.
One need look no further than the sport of soccer to understand this
concept. Soccer has experienced the popularity it has here in the US, not
because adults suddenly understood it and saw it on television more, but
because our youth began playing it in elementary school. A whole new
generation of people were developed that had a knowledge and appreciation
for the sport. In turn, soccer began to be seen more on television and
experienced increased popularity. This popularity clearly did not come
from adults understanding the game more, but rather, came from our youth's
invlolvement with the sport at a young age.
The
> ITTF doesn't seem to have the b*lls to cut racket coverings back to
> something reasonable THEIR analysis, not mine)...so suggestions like
> changing the ball and changing the net height are considered...
>
> My objections to the "modern" game are aesthetic...if you like it the
> way it is, that's your choice...be my guest...but it's
> BORING...(usually).
What do you consider boring? Personally, the speed and explosiveness are
what attracted me to the sport. I have no desire to have the game
decrease in speed. It is exciting to watch players hit four or five balls
in a row at 100mph. When I see the old matches from the 1930's, I find
that extremely boring. I don't want to watch a sport where men can wear
wool pants and be a World Champion.
Granted, matches between super-stars can be
> exciting...but any newcomer, watching even two above average-rated
> players can neither understand, comprehend or enthuse.
I disagree. Any newcomer can see that today's game takes skill and
athleticism. They can understand and comprehend that it takes much
practice to be able to play at such levels and that it would be fun and
exciting to be able to play as such.
>
> Argue all you want about the 40mm ball...but, at least, argue about
> whether it will achieve its stated purpose..to slow the sponge/inverted
> game down to make it understandable.
It will slow the game down, for a short time. It certainly will not make
the game more understandable. By the way, who is the game supposed to
become more understandable for? The people who aren't watching it anyway?
>
> I, personally, think it's not going to accomplish much, if anything,
> except to slow down HardBat, which is fine the way it is. The expected
> response by today's rubber-glue-freaks and the manufacturers will be to
> further modify equipment to restore and increase speed, pace, and spin.
> HardBat players, faced with it's soon-to-be, stringent, blade and rubber
> restrictions will perforce refrain from the arms race...
Logically, how can we believe that our sport will move forward by moving
it backward. With the exception of Auto Racing, no other sport that I am
aware of has tried to "slow down the sport" so that it becomes
understandable. The sport becomes understandable when it is introduced to
eager and open minds.
Russell Jordan
Scott L. Burson
>
> Give me a break! Sponge/inverted technology is not adopted by players
> to make the game more FUN! It's adopted in self-defense!
Have to disagree here. I *do* enjoy the sponge game, very much. I have never
felt I was using this equipment in self-defense.
If that's how *you* felt, then it's understandable that you would prefer the
hardbat game. I respect your preference. Please respect that many of us really
do enjoy the sponge game.
-- Scott
Scott L. Burson
>
> Eight bottles of Great
> Lakes Burning River and Ms. Lenya's surreal spooky charm
> ("you gentlemen best wipe that smile off your face--every
> building in town is a flat one!") can have a deleterious
> effect on one's editing ability.
Ha ha! I'm really enjoying your posts, Berndt.
-- Scott (now trying rubber combination #385,726)
Berndt Mann
(e.g., hardbat) in which a man could wear wool pants and be
a World Champion. Wool pants? Wool pants??!!! Did you
also notice the elbow patches on Bergmann's tweed jacket in
that long 42-ball boring point against Soos on the Legends
tape where each player (each player!) took turns
topspinning and chopping to one another until either Soos
or Bergmann (I forget who) crumpled like a poleaxed Panda
from exhaustion. (The chop, for those of you who aren't
familiar with this term, was until about 1952 the logical
answer to the topspin (loop for you generation Xers)
drive. In other words, when one dude swung forward and up,
imparting topspin, his opponent dude would almost always
swing forward and down, imparting backspin (there will be a
quiz) to slow the ball down and hopefully tire the topspin
dude out until he (or she) too would drop like a
suckerpunched sea lion from exhaustion). Trying to hit a
hard topspin such as Reismann's (believe me, Russ, you
wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of Marty's flat
forehand kill either in his prime or today, for that
matter) or Vana's with an even harder topspin (so bloomin'
simple with today's catapults) branded you as a damn fool
or a showoff back in the "wool pants" era.
Regarding today's TT fashions, most outfits worn by our
contemporary mongeese look to me as though they were
inspired by a busted kalidoscope.
Mikhail Sushchik
>
> Not to mention that the Christian Coalition and the cyrillic
> abbreviation for the USSR ("CCCP") *both* share initial initials..."CC"!
>
Throw in SS, which has cyrillic abbreviation CC.
Misha.
Dmitry M. Medvedev
> "Dmitry M. Medvedev" wrote:
> >
> > John Grinnell wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The 40 mm ball is not about ball visibility on TV!
>
> >
> > I think you are mistaken. To a large degree it is about
> > more TV coverage. You should not believe all ITTF is
> > writing.
> >
> > Dmitry
>
> Any suggestions as to *who* I *should* believe?
>
> Larry? Terry? S-Jan? The Kennedy Committee? The New World Order?
> International Bankers and the IMF? How about The Elders of Zion?
You should believe your own mind, I think. I have some (very slight) inside
information which makes me think you are mistaken.
> Who's in charge of Big Balls? Who's Pushing it? Why?
The following is surely for those who believe ITTF:
Adham Shahara's task: bring table tennis on television
Japanese manufacturers of table tennis balls have
resolutely blocked the renewal measurements in the
world of table tennis. They have lobbied against the
the introduction of the bigger ball for economic
reasons. This was said by Adham Shahara, the new
president of the ITTF, in an interview with the Daily
Bulletin. In his opinion the view of the Japanese
manufacturers is shortsighted. " I have told them: It is
also in your advantage that that there will be more TV
and that more people are going to play table tennis.
But they have only done some short term thinking and
asked other countries to vote against."
Shahara carries his defeat like a man. He thought the result (two votes
short) was a bit of luck,
because he had calculated on 50 - 50 and they almost reached the 75%
majority. Shahara,
being an intelligent man, takes advantage of the fact that next February
there will be yet
another General Congress where the issue will again be voted upon and than he
expects to
reach the necessary majority. The new President holds back another strategic
move: He has
sent the manufacturars a letter in which he lets them know that it will be a
wise move on their
part to hold in consideration a speed up introduction of the 40mm ball. The
abridging periode
will be shortened and the ITTF will, when the February vote will be positive,
introduce the
modernisations after the Sydney Olympics.
This is a piece of management that qualifies Shahara: he wants changes and he
wants them fast.
But why? Shahara: "It's all about television. We have to get this sport on
the screen in full. It
has to look better, you have to be able to follow it more easy. The centre
courts have to get a
face lift, it has got to look smooth as must the lighting . Table tennis must
become
entertainment for everyone watching television." The changes on the ball have
the highest
priority. He does not think of changing the rubber but table and net will
also undergo some
critical changes. Every measure that can upgrade table tennis, especially if
it makes table
tennis more attractive for TV has to be studied seriously, promises the new
President.
Even a definitive separation of the world championships like they have done
now?
Shahara: " No, for the time being we do not decide upon that issue. First a
combined
tournament, teams and individual, in 2001, in Osaka and than we will see how
thing stand."
What do you think about the organisation here in Eindhoven?
Shahara: " It is a miracle that the tournament can be held at all! The
organisers have done the
impossible. I would like to call the organisation good. If they would have
had a year of
preparation it would have been fantastic."
Finally, what is your dream for table tennis in 2010?
Shahara:" My dream is that when you swich on the TV in 2010, you'll be able
to see beutiful,
exciting Table tennis on every network.
The above is from the official site of the World Championships.
Dmitry, who does not believe ITTF usually, but believes to what Adham Sharara
said above.
Nettadave
growing US TV coverage because more youth began to play it a few years back.
Other 'boring' sports getting ample TV coverage include Golf, Bowling,
Baseball. Not likely to be interesting to people who haven't played them enough
to understand the 'nuances' and challenges involved.
Even watching Autoracing, is probably more popular in countries where most
people actually own & drive a car!
Dmitry M. Medvedev
> The alert Dmitry M. Medvedev noticed a gaping evidential
> chasm in my last bent scream on this thread. What I meant
> to say was that (Marty Reisman said that) 10% of the sponge
> game as played at the world class level can be sublime and
> that world class players are "sublimely talented". I
> didn't mean to imply by extention that everybody else who
> plays with sponge will by simple virtue of that fact also
> be or become "sublimely talented." Eight bottles of Great
> Lakes Burning River and Ms. Lenya's surreal spooky charm
> ("you gentlemen best wipe that smile off your face--every
> building in town is a flat one!") can have a deleterious
> effect on one's editing ability.
>
Could you please be so kind to explain what you mean to
a narrow-minded gluing sponge-killing foreigner? Except
of your claim that all spectators on table tennis events are
somehow connected with the sport, I did not understand
anything.
Dmitry. who does not challenge your superiority in writing
English.
Victor Kan
<jgri...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Notice that (MAKING THE GAME MORE ATTRACTIVE TO) players, whether elite or
>> recrational, aren't (isn't)even in the equation.
>
>Give me a break! Sponge/inverted technology is not adopted by players
>to make the game more FUN!
Ahem, but some of us do like sponge because it's fun (and perhaps more
fun than hardbat).
> It's adopted in self-defense! Each
It's no more/less fun to have your butt kicked by 2000+ inverted,
regluing looper than a 2000+ hardbat attacker. It's all in how much
they want to toy with you.
Against players of equal level, I have fun whether playing
with/against inverted or hardbat.
And if I wanted self defense, I'd play build my hardbat or combination
racket game to play against robo-power-loopers who panic at the sight
of an opponent using anything but inverted sponge. I certainly
wouldn't get faster and spinnier sponge rubber for "self defense".
>"improvement" in technology simply confers additional non-skill-based
>advantages to the user...which lasts only until his opponent adopts it
>as well...
It's not the "advantages" that appeal to me. It's simply that I can
do some particular shot in a given circumstance. Whether my opponent
can respond to it (which determines whether it really is an advantage
for me) is secondary. If he can respond, that's where the fun comes
in, whereas if I just blow it by him, it's no fun for either of us.
I guess people who only enjoy winning rather than enjoy playing (and
winning of course) do look for the advantage.
Dmitry M. Medvedev
> "Dmitry M. Medvedev" wrote:
> >
> > Berndt Mann wrote:
> >
> > > While even Marty'll admit 10% of the modern sponge game can
> > > be sublime and admittedly is played by sublimely talented
> > > athletes, <snip>
> >
> > There are millions of players in (sponge) table tennis, which all
> > have good rackets, but only very small percent of them becomes
> > good. You have to agree that these people have something more
> > than just rackets.
>
> "These people..." Which people??? The talented ten per cent or the
> other ninety?
Those which are good in table tennis. I think that Berndt Mann meant
that 10% of international players have "skills". I think that this is
wrong. I apologise if I misunderstand his post.
> > >
> > > If y'all want any more than a few thousand players in the
> > > U.S. to play this frippin' game and anybody at all to watch
> >
> > I don't think ITTF thinks about the USA, which is maybe their
> > mistake. Can you explain why people in other countries play
> > this ... sponge game but americans don't?
>
> As for watching, I can assure you that there are spectators. I saw them
> myself.
>
> Dmitry...did you check to see if it's *always* the same set of extras,
> watching? Remember "the Truman Show"...sometimes you can't believe
> everything you see... or read!
I don't know what "Truman Show" is. And what do you mean by the same
ser of extras? That the same people watch it? Then this is wrong.
Dmitry
Scott L. Burson
>
> Perhaps you did not see the ITTF's original report on the 40mm ball that
> was presented to the NGBs. The report clearly stated that a major reason
> for adopting the ball was to increase the sport's visibility in television
> coverage, particularly in Europe. European interest in the sport and its
> media coverage have decreased in the past few years. Many believe that by
> making the ball larger, we will see this decreasing trend change.
> The sport cannot be understood unless
> an individual has been a participant at a higher level than "Basement
> Player." It is for this reason that we have to start with a new
> generation of young people and affect their perception of the sport.
But Russ, you just said the problem the ITTF is attempting to solve is the
decreased interest in the sport *in Europe*, where it is already entrenched.
Sure, junior outreach is important, and particularly here in the US where so few
people even know about TT, but if interest is waning even in countries where the
sport has been popular for a long time, then it is no surprise that the ITTF
should conclude that something has to be done about that.
None of this proves, of course, that the 40mm ball will help. Arguments have
been presented on both sides, but I would venture to say no one really knows.
> > Argue all you want about the 40mm ball...but, at least, argue about
> > whether it will achieve its stated purpose..to slow the sponge/inverted
> > game down to make it understandable.
>
> It will slow the game down, for a short time. It certainly will not make
> the game more understandable.
I think the jury is still out on this. I don't think we know what the effect is
going to be. The ball seems to reduce the incidence of spin errors. It does
seem possible to me that this will make the game more satisfying to watch.
> By the way, who is the game supposed to
> become more understandable for? The people who aren't watching it anyway?
The ones on the edge of watching it. Those who channel-surf by, and either move
on or don't, depending on whether what they see grabs their attention or not.
> Logically, how can we believe that our sport will move forward by moving
> it backward. With the exception of Auto Racing, no other sport that I am
> aware of has tried to "slow down the sport" so that it becomes
> understandable.
Heh, well, they don't slow down auto racing to make it understandable, they slow
it down to make it survivable :-)
Anyway, note that in tennis they have their three different surfaces with
different properties. Fast hardcourts, although popular, have not displaced
clay and grass, and some players prefer the slower surfaces.
Hey, maybe this is the answer -- declare both balls to be legal, at the
discretion of the Tournament Director. Some tournaments will be traditionally
38mm, some 40mm, just as tennis has its traditional clay and grass and hardcourt
tournaments, and players have to adjust (some are better at adjusting than
others, of course). Well, it's a thought.
> The sport becomes understandable when it is introduced to
> eager and open minds.
Again, looking at the situation in Europe -- the ITTF and the various national
TT organizations can and should use what resources they have to promote the
sport, and particularly, as you say, among young people. But in the end, it's
up to all those potential players out there to decide whether the sport appeals
to them or not, and if it doesn't, they won't take it up, no matter how much you
or I enjoy it. The point is that better outreach can be productive only if the
game is fundamentally appealing, vis-a-vis the alternatives, to at least a
sufficiently large number of people.
While I'm on that track -- no one has mentioned this, but I think our stiffest
competition is probably video games. They appeal to the same turn of mind, I
think, that likes the complexity and lightning-fast quality of TT. Maybe
there's a marketing angle here that we should pursue: "Parents! Get your kids
away from the Nintendo! TT is just as much fun, and a lot more exercise!"
-- Scott
Berndt Mann
wrote in a previous post I did not make myself entirely
clear when I tried to paraphrase Marty Reisman's statement
that he found sponge play at the international level to
be "sublime" 10 percent of the time. Neither Marty nor I
meant to imply that only 10 percent of the players at the
international level are highly skilled players. All of the
players who are skillful enough to compete at the
international level are incredible and much
underappreciated athletes, especially here in America.
By the way, Dimitry, I myself have been a speed glue using
two winged attacking looper, using at various times from
1992-1997 Mark V GPS, Stiga Mendo, Donic Vario Soft, TSP
X's, Schildkrot V-Max, and Schildkrot V-Max Tensor. I've
also used Tip-Top, Spinny Top, Saive Express, and ASTI
speed glues with ASTI booster. I've even tried thinning
various speed glues with Ronson lighter fluid and xylene to
get a more even and longer lasting and more predictable
speed glue effect. Now and then I sort of miss cracking
off an occasional 2200 level loop kill past some suprised
junior (how did that old fart do that?).
What I don't miss, as someone who started out table tennis
life as a chopper forty years ago is (for me, at least)the
near impossibility of chopping back a loop too difficult to
block with these supercharged rubbers and a 1200 level over
the table game trying to return short serves and execute
safe pushes when necessary. Now in my mid-fifties, I also
came to realize the eventual futility of trying to outloop
players thirty and forty years younger than I whose looping
technique was at least as good as mine and who could loop
harder. The fact that I could often beat easily in hardbat
to hardbat play some of the same players who beat me easily
in sponge to sponge play convinced me that at least as far
as I was concerned playing with speed glued inverted
rubber, the only ultimately effective way to play sponge to
sponge, was not in my best interest.
Berndt the recovering loopaholic
John Grinnell
> > > > Much has been said about the potential of the 40 mm ball and it's
> > > > relationship to more/better TV coverage. This relationship is pure
> > > > myth.
> > > >
To which I responded:
> > The 40 mm ball is not about ball visibility on TV!
Then Russ wrote:
> John,
> Perhaps you did not see the ITTF's original report on the 40mm ball that
> was presented to the NGBs. The report clearly stated that a major reason
> for adopting the ball was to increase the sport's visibility in television
> coverage,
Here's where I may have to eat my words, as I was depending on the ITTF
web page statement which I quoted... do the words "increase the sport's
visibility in television coverage" mean that the BALL'S visibility is
increased? Or, do they mean the the SPORT's visibility (ie., more
TABLE-TENNIS shown)?
I interpreted that phrase (and the reat of the discussion) in the sense
of:
excessive spin and speed from modern racket coverings have increased the
speed of the game, shortened the number of hits in a point, resulted in
more (apparently - to the casual viewer) unforced errors, and in
general, made watching the game less enjoyable (again, to the casual
spectator).
Because of this, TV ratings (since casual viewers far outnumber the
cognicenti, in the general population) for the sport are decreasing.
Increasing the ball size is an attempt to counteract the effects of
modern racket coverings by slowing the game down, in hopes of increasing
the number of hits in a point, reducing the number of apparently
unforced errors, and making the cause-and-effect of strokes and ball
behavior easier to observe and comprehend.
If this interpretation was incorrect, then I apologize to one and all
for my recent rant!
I have no brief in favor of the bigger ball...in fact, as technology
increases its effect, eventually even the most rabid speed-gluer or
sticky-rubber player will have to admit that "it ain't Table Tennis no
more!". The big ball just prolongs the agony...the time waiting for the
reaction to set in.
The ITTF discussion said, in effect, sponge/inverted technology and its
countervailing long-pips/anti-spin responses have damaged the
playability and watchability of Table Tennis...but we haven't the
fortitude to severely rstrict it...so, instead, we'll take stop-gap
measures; i.e. consider higher nets, bigger balls, service constraints,
and my favorite, the (rumored about) different-size table. The
long-pipped minority didn't have enough clout to force a corresponding
restraint in sponge/inverted equipment...but so long as the vast
majority of players think that "their" favorite combo confers an
advantage to "them", they'll stand fast...figuring that what they gain
is worth what they have to put up with.
particularly in Europe. European interest in the sport and its
> media coverage have decreased in the past few years. Many believe that by
> making the ball larger, we will see this decreasing trend change.
> >
> > It's not the TV camera!!! It's the lack of spectator appeal!!!
>
> It is both, and the 40mm ball will do nothing to change either. For us to
> assume that by slowing the game down that it will suddenly become
> understandable to the average person,
would you believe "less incomprehensible"?
thereby increasing the sport's
> popularity and appeal, is ridiculous. People with established lifestyles
> will not change their opinion and actions simply because they have a new
> found "understanding" of the sport. The sport cannot be understood unless
> an individual has been a participant at a higher level than "Basement
> Player."
I would expect that a "basement player" *would* understand...he might
say "gee, I wonder how they did that!", or "Why did he miss that shot,
when the match is supposed to be among highly rated players...it must
have been something I can't notice." It's the clueless...the great
majority, in this country anyway, who can't hit the ball with a racket,
let alone get it on *either* side of the table, whom a TV producer hopes
to impress. Grass-court tennis had a "cult" fandom...knowledgable
people who enjoyed serve & volley. But tennis didn't become a "mass
media" event until the advent of hard & clay court tennis...and what was
the difference??? Longer rallies and a wider range of tactics. When
the spaghetti racket was proposed, the associations put their feet
down...to preserve the game in it's then present state.
Admittedly tennis strokes and speed have increased, but because of
improved technique...not some exotic equipment choice. Serve and volley
became passe, and power ground strokes is the name of the game now.
Sadly, in Table Tennis, the camel got its nose in the tent, and after a
year, the equipment horsepower race was on...players *had* to switch to
sponge, because the "other guy" had it, and it's far more effective than
the old HardBat. Players may or may not have improved...but equipment
certainly has!
Sorry...I've gone on too long, and I got off subject. I can't argue
with your opinion that if we could interest young people, we'd build a
player base. I'm not sure, however, that it's the *only* way to
increase the number of players (that is what we're talking about, isn't
it? more serious players?)
Sorry I said that the modern game was boring...what I should have said
is that *I* find it boring to watch...most of the time. In Fort
Luuderdale, last month, Seyd was certainly not boring to watch, and I'm
sure there are many matches on that level...
...but any newcomer, watching even two above average-rated
> > players can neither understand, comprehend or enthuse.
>
> I disagree. Any newcomer can see that today's game takes skill and
> athleticism.
Hey...so does weight-lifting!
They can understand and comprehend that it takes much
> practice to be able to play at such levels and that it would be fun and
> exciting to be able to play as such.
If only they could figure out "how"...
> >
> > Argue all you want about the 40mm ball...but, at least, argue about
> > whether it will achieve its stated purpose..to slow the sponge/inverted
> > game down to make it understandable.
>
> It will slow the game down, for a short time. It certainly will not make
> the game more understandable. By the way, who is the game supposed to
> become more understandable for? The people who aren't watching it anyway?
I agree completely...it'll only make a difference for a short
time...till technology takes still another giant leap (but in what
direction?).
>
> >
> > I, personally, think it's not going to accomplish much, if anything,
> > except to slow down HardBat, which is fine the way it is. The expected
> > response by today's rubber-glue-freaks and the manufacturers will be to
> > further modify equipment to restore and increase speed, pace, and spin.
> > HardBat players, faced with it's soon-to-be, stringent, blade and rubber
> > restrictions will perforce refrain from the arms race...
>
> Logically, how can we believe that our sport will move forward by moving
> it backward.
It depends upon where you think it should go, doesn't it?
> With the exception of Auto Racing, no other sport that I am
> aware of has tried to "slow down the sport" so that it becomes
> understandable.
But there are many sports which have taken action to prevent technology,
techniques, and equipment from changing it into something
unrecognizable...Bat material, weight and so forth restrictions in
baseball...racket restrictions in tennis...basket-ball has prohibited
the zone defense...(and is rapidly morphing into a contact sport...when
it gets out of hand, there'll be a reaction)... and don't mention
golf...which has steadfastly resisted change for a very long
time...certain club designs which were deemed "unfair" were prohibited,
ball technology is tightly controlled...
> The sport becomes understandable when it is introduced to eager and open minds.
And when it's played in an understandable fashion...as well.
>
> Russell Jordan
> >
> > John the Traditionalist
> >
> > John the Elder
and Finally, John the Stick-in-the-mud
John R. Miller
<jgri...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>Grass-court tennis had a "cult" fandom...knowledgable
>people who enjoyed serve & volley. But tennis didn't become a "mass
>media" event until the advent of hard & clay court tennis
Tennis has always been played on a variety of courts. While it is true
that for years 3 of the 4 most important tournaments were on grass, if we
expand the list to the 6 most important tournaments (adding the Italian
and German championships to Wimbledon, the US Open, the French and the
Australian) then half of these most important tournaments were played on
something other than grass (I don't actually know what the German
championships are played on. They may have even started on grass in the
late 1800s, but Harold Solomon won the event in 1980, over Guillermo
Vilas, so I am certain it wasn't on grass then).
In general, grass courts have always been rare because it is so difficult
to maintain a grass court.
> Admittedly tennis strokes and speed have increased, but because of
>improved technique...not some exotic equipment choice. Serve and volley
>became passe, and power ground strokes is the name of the game now.
I disagree. Today's widebody raquets make it possible for players to hit
the ball much harder than is possible with a wooden raquet or even a metal
or composite raquet of more traditional geometry.
Dmitry M. Medvedev
> Here's where I may have to eat my words, as I was depending on the ITTF
> web page statement which I quoted... do the words "increase the sport's
> visibility in television coverage" mean that the BALL'S visibility is
> increased? Or, do they mean the the SPORT's visibility (ie., more
> TABLE-TENNIS shown)?
As far as I can understand, they want to have more table tennis on TV.
This is the ultimate goal. They claim that bigger ball will slow the game
down, produce longer rallies and will be more visible on TV screen.
I heard that Copenhagen Pondus Cup. played with bigger balls and
shown on TV (in Denmark, I guess) was not more visible than usual
table tennis.
>
> I have no brief in favor of the bigger ball...in fact, as technology
> increases its effect, eventually even the most rabid speed-gluer or
> sticky-rubber player will have to admit that "it ain't Table Tennis no
> more!". The big ball just prolongs the agony...the time waiting for the
> reaction to set in.
I doubt very much that I'll ever say that. Only maybe if sponge is banned :).
> The ITTF discussion said, in effect, sponge/inverted technology and its
> countervailing long-pips/anti-spin responses have damaged the
> playability and watchability of Table Tennis
I don't understand how they reduced playability of the sport.
> Sadly, in Table Tennis, the camel got its nose in the tent, and after a
> year, the equipment horsepower race was on...players *had* to switch to
> sponge, because the "other guy" had it, and it's far more effective than
> the old HardBat. Players may or may not have improved...but equipment
> certainly has!
In what sense did they "not improve" when their game became better due
to change of equipment? How could they improve or not improve when the
game itself changed so much? There is no way to compare.
>
>
> Sorry...I've gone on too long, and I got off subject. I can't argue
> with your opinion that if we could interest young people, we'd build a
> player base. I'm not sure, however, that it's the *only* way to
> increase the number of players (that is what we're talking about, isn't
> it? more serious players?)
To have more serious players one needs to give them opportunities to
play professionally. In this way less number of juniors will quit serious
play going into college. And let's see the truth - it's almost impossible
to be a really good player and to get good education simultaneously. I
know that there are exclusions (Syed, Japanes, as far as I know), but most
of the serious table tennis players don't have good education (e.g Waldner
and St.Bengtsson left their schools).
> > I disagree. Any newcomer can see that today's game takes skill and
> > athleticism.
>
> Hey...so does weight-lifting!
Yes. In fact I like watching it, the struggle is apparent and exciting.
Dmitry
Dmitry M. Medvedev
> All of the
> players who are skillful enough to compete at the
> international level are incredible and much
> underappreciated athletes, especially here in America.
I strongly agree.
> What I don't miss, as someone who started out table tennis
> life as a chopper forty years ago is (for me, at least)the
> near impossibility of chopping back a loop too difficult to
> block with these supercharged rubbers and a 1200 level over
> the table game trying to return short serves and execute
> safe pushes when necessary. Now in my mid-fifties, I also
> came to realize the eventual futility of trying to outloop
> players thirty and forty years younger than I whose looping
> technique was at least as good as mine and who could loop
> harder. The fact that I could often beat easily in hardbat
> to hardbat play some of the same players who beat me easily
> in sponge to sponge play convinced me that at least as far
> as I was concerned playing with speed glued inverted
> rubber, the only ultimately effective way to play sponge to
> sponge, was not in my best interest.
It's your personal views. It does not mean that hardbat is
"better" than sponge, as you are saying, if I understand it
correctly. I enjoy playing with sponge and being a looper
and counter-hitter. I can't agree with your saying that Satoh
had stolen world crown. He won it without breaking the rules,
using legal equipment. I bet that the great majority of today's
players will not like the idea of switching to hardbat, even
if some of them are assured that they will have better results
with it.
Dmitry
Alan & Erin Williams
>
(snip)
>
> Because of this, TV ratings (since casual viewers far outnumber the
> cognicenti, in the general population) for the sport are decreasing.
> Increasing the ball size is an attempt to counteract the effects of
> modern racket coverings by slowing the game down, in hopes of increasing
> the number of hits in a point, reducing the number of apparently
> unforced errors, and making the cause-and-effect of strokes and ball
> behavior easier to observe and comprehend.
>
SAdly, I think you are right, and the 40mm is an attempt to nullify the
effect of racket covering effects that ITTF is apparently unable or
unwilling to legislate against...speed-glue and inverted catapulting.
(snip)
>
> Admittedly tennis strokes and speed have increased, but because of
> improved technique...not some exotic equipment choice. Serve and volley
> became passe, and power ground strokes is the name of the game now.
>
> Sadly, in Table Tennis, the camel got its nose in the tent, and after a
> year, the equipment horsepower race was on...players *had* to switch to
> sponge, because the "other guy" had it, and it's far more effective than
> the old HardBat. Players may or may not have improved...but equipment
> certainly has!
>
There is no sport I can think of that has stayed static in technology
since 1952.
>
> Sorry I said that the modern game was boring...what I should have said
> is that *I* find it boring to watch...most of the time. In Fort
> Luuderdale, last month, Seyd was certainly not boring to watch, and I'm
> sure there are many matches on that level...
> ...but any newcomer, watching even two above average-rated
> > > players can neither understand, comprehend or enthuse.
> >
> > I disagree. Any newcomer can see that today's game takes skill and
> > athleticism.
>
Chiang, in the final, was firing pure bullets from his KPH style, a
one-play cypress and Bryce combo. In any case, it was readily apparent
that little 'subtle' was happening. I saw it as a display of brute
force.
> > >
(snip)
> >
> > >
> > > I, personally, think it's not going to accomplish much, if anything,
> > > except to slow down HardBat, which is fine the way it is. The expected
> > > response by today's rubber-glue-freaks and the manufacturers will be to
> > > further modify equipment to restore and increase speed, pace, and spin.
> > > HardBat players, faced with it's soon-to-be, stringent, blade and rubber
> > > restrictions will perforce refrain from the arms race...
> >
> > Logically, how can we believe that our sport will move forward by moving
> > it backward.
>
> It depends upon where you think it should go, doesn't it?
>
I think I understand you hard-bat folks, but I love the sponge game,
personally. Sponge has introduced not only a higher degree of spin, but
also a larger amount of variability of spin in each shot. I think that
it has made the game more exciting to play, if less comprehensible to
(uniformed) spectators. As to service return errors...if a world class
player duffs a serve into the net, or pops the return 18 inches high,
isn't it obvious what just happened?
There should be room in the sport for both 'styles', playing under the
same rules. I think it is farcially to maintain, as Berndt MAnn
apparently does, that sponge converts a duffer into a shark. Look at
teh Hardbat rating list and you will see a strong positive correlation
between sponge excellence and hardbat excellence.
Tannehill, Sweeris, Reisman, et al, are great players, no matter how you
legislate the technology. Alan Williams and his ilk will struggle to
reach the bottom third of rankings no matter what bat is used. This is
still a 'see the ball', 'hit the ball' game.
Alan
Berndt Mann
that Satoh did nothing illegal in winning the 1952 World
Men's Singles Championship. In 1952 there were no
restrictions on the size, weight, shape, or composition of
a racket or racket covering.
Perhaps some excerpts from Marty Reisman's book The Money
Player will the metaphorical meaning of my statement,
exaggerated for satirical effect. A fair working
definition of satire is deliberate exaggeration to
illustrate some sort of partisan version of truth.
From Reisman's The Money Player: "(Richard) Bergmann kept
his warmup clothes on and lost the second game 21-6. Doug
(Cartland) and I were as stunned as the audience. Satoh
played like a rank amateur. He pushed the ball with his
backhand, slapped at it with his forehand, did
everything 'wrong' a player could do, and yet Bergmann
seemed unable to cope with anything he did. Shots that
looked like duck soup trickled off Bergmann's racket into
the net, or flew erratically off the end of the table..."
..."In all his life he (Bergmann) had probably not lost a
game 21-6..."Satoh won the third and deciding game 21-
8...He had an idea, as did everyone in the audience, that
his inability to cope with Satoh had something to do with
the man's racket..."On one side of the racket was a three-
quarters-inch-thick layer of foam rubber; on the other side
was bare wood..."
..."A player no one had heard of had beaten a four-time
World (Singles) Champion by humiliating scores..."To be
fair, no one was more surprised than Satoh himself. He had
no idea what that racket could do. He seemed genuinely
embarrassed..."
Perhaps I was a bit mean to Mr. Satoh in calling
him "infamous" as by all accounts from his contemporaries
he was a humble and pleasant man. I think, however, that
he and his table tennis contemporaries would also agree
that he would not have had a snowball's change in hell of
beating either Richard Bergmann or Marty Reisman in world
class competition had he used a racket covered with hard
rubber.
Berndt Mann
slapping on a couple sheets of sponge a "duffer" is
suddenly going to become a "shark". By definition, a
duffer will remain a duffer no matter what rubber surface
he chooses.
IMO, is it more likely than not that a sponge rubber duffer
will beat a hard rubber duffer do to the less predictable
nature of the speed and spin of sponge, even though their
duffer lack of sound biomechanics, tactics, and techniques
is about the same.
To illustrate the advantage the sponge conveys at the elite
level, suppose their were a tournament in which Jim Butler,
Todd Sweeris, and Dan Seemiller, all top players on Scott
Gordon's Underground Hard Rubber Rating List, had to play
players like Yiyong Fan, Cheng Yinghua, David Zhuang, Eric
Owens, or Barney Reed Jr. using hard rubber rackets against
their (mostly) reglued sponge. I very much doubt that in
such a hypothetical tournament that Jim, Todd, and Dan
would play hardbat to sponge at a level much above John
Tannehill's current 2215 USATT rating. Since these players
play sponge to sponge (or using sponge against hardbat) at
the 2500-2650 level my guesstimate is that they'd play at
the 2300 USATT rating level tops if they had to play
hardbat against sponge players with ratings equal or
approximate to theirs.
Dmitry M. Medvedev
> From Reisman's The Money Player: "(Richard) Bergmann kept
> his warmup clothes on and lost the second game 21-6. Doug
> (Cartland) and I were as stunned as the audience. Satoh
> played like a rank amateur. He pushed the ball with his
> backhand, slapped at it with his forehand, did
> everything 'wrong' a player could do, and yet Bergmann
> seemed unable to cope with anything he did. Shots that
> looked like duck soup trickled off Bergmann's racket into
> the net, or flew erratically off the end of the table..."
>
> ..."In all his life he (Bergmann) had probably not lost a
> game 21-6..."Satoh won the third and deciding game 21-
> 8...He had an idea, as did everyone in the audience, that
> his inability to cope with Satoh had something to do with
> the man's racket..."On one side of the racket was a three-
> quarters-inch-thick layer of foam rubber; on the other side
> was bare wood..."
>
> ..."A player no one had heard of had beaten a four-time
> World (Singles) Champion by humiliating scores..."To be
> fair, no one was more surprised than Satoh himself. He had
> no idea what that racket could do. He seemed genuinely
> embarrassed..."
Thanks for the quote.
> Perhaps I was a bit mean to Mr. Satoh in calling
> him "infamous" as by all accounts from his contemporaries
> he was a humble and pleasant man. I think, however, that
> he and his table tennis contemporaries would also agree
> that he would not have had a snowball's change in hell of
> beating either Richard Bergmann or Marty Reisman in world
> class competition had he used a racket covered with hard
> rubber.
I think you are right. I also think that Ogimura or Tanaka
could not beat Bergmann or Reisman with hardbat. In fact Sido,
playing with hardbat, several times beat Ogimura after 1954 and
was a world runner-up in 1959, when most of the players used
sponge. He even beat Jung Kuo-Tuan in teams, who later beat
him in the final of men's singles. Bergmann in 1957 twice beat
Tanaka (once with the score about 21:7, 21:8). So at that time
sponge players did not yet have such a great advantage over
best hardbatters, though Satoh was of course a big surprise.
According to Reisman, he used a very thick sponge. Two years
later Ogimura also started with a very thick one (10mm) but
did not like it, switched to thinner one (2mm, I think) and won
World Championship. Since that time both technology and
sponge playing technique have developed very much. I think
that Larry Hodges in his article about hardbat in one of the
Paddle Palace catalogues (I did not read it, just saw first few
sentences, sorry, Larry) wrote that during sponge epoch new
techniques were introduced which were unknown in hardbat
times but which are used by hardbatters in the USA now. So I
think we can say that in some sense skill was also improved
during sponge time.
Dmitry
John Grinnell
> Berndt Mann wrote:
>
> > What I don't miss, as someone who started out table tennis
> > life as a chopper forty years ago is (for me, at least)the
> > near impossibility of chopping back a loop too difficult to
> > block with these supercharged rubbers and a 1200 level over
> > the table game trying to return short serves and execute
> > safe pushes when necessary. Now in my mid-fifties, I also
> > came to realize the eventual futility of trying to outloop
> > players thirty and forty years younger than I whose looping
> > technique was at least as good as mine and who could loop
> > harder. The fact that I could often beat easily in hardbat
> > to hardbat play some of the same players who beat me easily
> > in sponge to sponge play convinced me that at least as far
> > as I was concerned playing with speed glued inverted
> > rubber, the only ultimately effective way to play sponge to
> > sponge, was not in my best interest.
>
> Dmitry
Hey Berndt...
Check your snail mail in a few days...I'm sending you a package
containing:
1 gross of commas;
a medium sized pkg of dashes and hyphens;
2 dozen paragraphs;
1 large box of cr/lf (ascii 10/13)- for spacing;
as your copmputer apparently has a memory leak, and your tank is empty.
John the Elder
John Grinnell
> <large snip>
> John Grinnell wrote:
< <a lot of blather>
> > (the) way to
> > increase the number of players (that is what we're talking about, isn't
> > it? more serious players?)
>
> To have more serious players one needs to give them opportunities to
> play professionally. In this way less number of juniors will quit serious
> play going into college. And let's see the truth - it's almost impossible
> to be a really good player and to get good education simultaneously. I
> know that there are exclusions (Syed, Japanes, as far as I know), but most
> of the serious table tennis players don't have good education (e.g Waldner
> and St.Bengtsson left their schools). <snip>
> Dmitry
Somewhat off-subject...but a thought. Even though it's much fun to
troll the bait and get strikes by outrageous posting, I wonder if we all
haven't overlooked a basic question concerning the "Growth of Table
Tennis".
Could it be that there's no consensus over exactly *what* we're trying
to grow...and tht's why there are so many conflicting ideas about how to
achieve it?
I see Dmitry's concept involves "opportunities to play professionally",
which I guess means broadening the "customer base" of spectators (or is
that only the "proof" that TT has grown?) while mine seems to be
"increasing the number of "serious" players -- folks who play often and
aare concerend with playing the game "right" (considering such things
as: sound strokes, proper footwork, courtesy, the history of the sport,
and other factors beyond "I just beat my roommate!")
Others may be satisfied with an increase in the presteige of TT..
hearing no more snickers at the statement "My sport? I play Table
Tennis".
Perhaps if we could be sure that we all shared the samegoal, we'd be
more "together" about how to achieve it...
Just a thought
John the Elder
Berndt Mann
in one of my posts today): sorry, I was not thinking quite
straight after proofreading my reply to your post on this
thread. Two Great Lakes Burning Rivers before lunch wasn't
such a great idea after all. John Williams is a veteran
player at our club in Columbus.
Since we met for the first time at the U.S. Open in Ft.
Lauderdale and had a convivial chat at the players' party
we know one another as friendly adversaries in the never
ending sponge vs. hardbat debate as to which side holds a
monopoly on truth, beauty and justice and which style will
make the world safe for democracy.
John R. Miller
<jgri...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> I see Dmitry's concept involves "opportunities to play professionally",
>which I guess means broadening the "customer base" of spectators (or is
>that only the "proof" that TT has grown?) while mine seems to be
>"increasing the number of "serious" players -- folks who play often and
>aare concerend with playing the game "right" (considering such things
>as: sound strokes, proper footwork, courtesy, the history of the sport,
>and other factors beyond "I just beat my roommate!")
For what it's worth, I'm with you.
John Grinnell
>
> John Grinnell wrote:
> >
> > Give me a break! Sponge/inverted technology is not adopted by players
>
> Have to disagree here. I *do* enjoy the sponge game, very much. I have never
> felt I was using this equipment in self-defense.
>
> If that's how *you* felt, then it's understandable that you would prefer the
> hardbat game. I respect your preference. Please respect that many of us really
> do enjoy the sponge game.
>
> -- Scott
If I have offended anyone, it was unintentional...I've really tried not
to "knock" sponge...but rather to explain why I prefer HardBat vs:
HardBat. A year and some back, in one of my first rants, I said
something like "...it's two DIFFERENT games...neither one "better" than
the other, just different".
However, just imagine the folowing scenario...tomorrow night you stroll
down to your favorite club, and in walks a 65 year-old guy you KNOW
(because you've played with him over the years) is, at best, mediocre,
with an unorthadox, ineffective style, ugly to watch or play against,
and to make it worse, has a physical disability which further hampers
him to a moderate degree.
However, he's a pleasant guy and a sincere TT enthusiast, so you say
"Want to hit a few?" He reaches into his bag and pulls out a
surprise...an outlandish device (similar, perhaps, to the palette-like
thing rumored to exist in California), and proceeds to WHIP YOUR
BUTT...and later, all the best players in the club.
Realizing that you've just seen the future of Table Tennis (the only
similarity between what he does and what you do is that you both use the
same rules, ball and table), and the end of the game you love...what
'cha gonna' do, Bunkie? Go out and get yourself an Atiomic Ace Palette
Blade with Patented Silly-Putty surfaces (IN SELF-DEFENSE)...or sit
around and kvetch, like I do?
If you think I made this whole thing up, it was the Houston Open, in
early '54, I think, the guy was 65, came from Oklahoma, and had a
club-foot...and it happened to me...really!
John the Still-Smarting
John Grinnell
<snip> (of Alan Willaims)
>
> Since we met for the first time at the U.S. Open in Ft.
> Lauderdale and had a convivial chat at the players' party
> we know one another as friendly adversaries in the never
> ending sponge vs. hardbat debate as to which side holds a
> monopoly on truth, beauty and justice and which style will
> make the world safe for democracy.
>
Not to mention the Balance of Payments problem!! Ten dollars worth of
English Rubber every four years VS: who-knows-how-many sheets of sponge
from the Orient every few months...plus, of course, all the
tried-once-but-failed, "maybe this will be better" stuff...
I nominate Don Iguana for the Balance-of-Payments Award!
John the Economist (Really)
Scott L. Burson
>
> "Scott L. Burson" wrote:
> >
> > John Grinnell wrote:
> > >
> > > Give me a break! Sponge/inverted technology is not adopted by players
> > > to make the game more FUN! It's adopted in self-defense!
> >
> > Have to disagree here. I *do* enjoy the sponge game, very much. I have never
> > felt I was using this equipment in self-defense.
> >
> > If that's how *you* felt, then it's understandable that you would prefer the
> > hardbat game. I respect your preference. Please respect that many of us really
> > do enjoy the sponge game.
>
> to "knock" sponge...but rather to explain why I prefer HardBat vs:
> HardBat.
I took no offense, and I do understand what you mean about having to adopt
sponge in self-defense, but I wanted to remind you that the sponge game does
have its rewards. To each their own, of course.
> Realizing that you've just seen the future of Table Tennis (the only
> similarity between what he does and what you do is that you both use the
> same rules, ball and table), and the end of the game you love...what
> 'cha gonna' do, Bunkie? Go out and get yourself an Atiomic Ace Palette
> Blade with Patented Silly-Putty surfaces (IN SELF-DEFENSE)...or sit
> around and kvetch, like I do?
Or start a new organization, as you, Scott, etc. have been doing, and for which
I applaud you.
One other tack which has been available at least since the early 1980s is to put
long pips with no sponge on both sides of your bat. This lets you play a game
not too different from the hardbat game, and will befuddle most sponge players
as much as the early sponge befuddled you. Fight fire with fire, right? We
have a former hardbatter here in Santa Cruz who has done exactly that at my
recommendation; he's now over 1500.
-- Scott
Alan & Erin Williams
>
>
> Since we met for the first time at the U.S. Open in Ft.
> Lauderdale and had a convivial chat at the players' party
> we know one another as friendly adversaries in the never
> ending sponge vs. hardbat debate as to which side holds a
> monopoly on truth, beauty and justice and which style will
> make the world safe for democracy.
>
I did indeed enjoy meeting you, a man who puts his money where is mouth is has
become a rarity.
I don't view either game as 'holding a monopoly on truth, etc.'. Softball and Baseball
are similar, yet decidely different sports, obviously rooted in the same game. That's how
I think of hardbat and inverted play. Trying to play baseball with a softball glove and bat
would put you at a decided disadvantage. Pitching a baseball with the fast-pitch softball
motion might not be such a good idea, either.
Surely there's room for both versions.
I'm told, BTW, that I have lost my stranglehold on deadlast in the hardbat ratings list. A
pity. ;-)
Players as bad as I am must take solace in those fleeting points where we actually appear
to know what we are doing. I had such a moment about three weeks ago. There were
witnesses...I took a point from a 2200 penholder...with a series of aggressive FHs.
When I settle my head on my pillow...the other 21 points disappear and I smile at the
memory of 'my moment'. And you want me forsake the sponge game? With success
like that?
Alan
John Grinnell
>
> John Grinnell wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Have to disagree here. I *do* enjoy the sponge game, very much. I have never
> > > felt I was using this equipment in self-defense.
> > >
> > > I respect your preference. Please respect that many of us really
> > > do enjoy the sponge game.
> >
> > If I have offended anyone, it was unintentional...I've really tried not
> > to "knock" sponge...but rather to explain why I prefer HardBat vs:
> > HardBat.
>
> I took no offense, and I do understand what you mean about having to adopt
> sponge in self-defense, but I wanted to remind you that the sponge game does
> have its rewards. To each their own, of course.
>
> > Realizing that you've just seen <snip> the end of the game you love...what
> > 'cha gonna' do, Bunkie? Go out and get yourself an Atiomic Ace Palette
> > Blade with Patented Silly-Putty surfaces (IN SELF-DEFENSE)...or sit
> > around and kvetch, like I do?
>
> Or start a new organization, as you, Scott, etc. have been doing, and for which
> I applaud you.
>
> One other tack which has been available at least since the early 1980s is to put
> long pips with no sponge on both sides of your bat. This lets you play a game
> not too different from the hardbat game, and will befuddle most sponge players
> as much as the early sponge befuddled you. Fight fire with fire, right? We
> have a former hardbatter here in Santa Cruz who has done exactly that at my
> recommendation; he's now over 1500.
>
> -- Scott
That's a good response...it forced me to reconsider my motives for
supporting HardBat, from a different perspective. Suppose I grew up
using sponge/inverted, and suddenly the rules changed to...everyone
*must* use a hardbat. How would I feel, and why?
I'd feel the same was as I do now! My skill-set, tailored to the
equipment I'd *been* using, honed to some degree of perfection,
well-defined and recognized by my peers, has suddenly been rendered
obsolete, superfluous and redundant (OK..I'm exaggerating, to emphasize
the point).
I'd be further aggravated by the perception that this change had been
"imposed" upon me...(makes no difference whether it was by a "vote" ["we
all decided to switch, because it's more effective"] or by proclamation
["ITTF decided we *had* to switch"]), increasing my resentment.
Most importantly, accepting the switch would require that I discard a
long-held set of personal ("mine") and external (other players')
value-judgements about what constituted "skillful-admirable-laudable"
play, and replace those value-judgements with new ones...more
appropriate to the new equipment and style.
So it makes no difference what equipment is used, its proponents are
very unlikely to want to *switch* ... which is not to say that it's
unlikely for some folks to be willing to specialize in more than one.
Abandonment/replacment is tough, but adding an additional skill and
value set is easier to swallow.
Using the above assumptions, the alternative " ...Fight fire with
fire,"... of adopting no-sponge/long-pips, is no more palatable than
adopting sponge! It's still an "imposed" situation, and it still
requires that I discard my personal value-judgements. I much prefer the
baseball-softball analogy (mentioned recently)...play one or play the
other...or play both, using appropriate rules and equipment.
Of course, the argument will reduce to "Which is the *REAL* Table
Tennis?", but that's meaningless in the grand scheme of the universe,
isn't it?
If nothing else results from our dialog, I've come to realize "which"
game we play is unimportant...the fact that *more* of us play is.
John the Newly-enlightened
Berndt Mann
Castle Industrial Brand coffee, I, like my tag team partner
John (The Elder) Grinell, have come to realize that our
thoughtful and eloquent adversaries Scott L. Burson, Russ
Jordan, Dimitry M. Medvedev, Nettadave, and Alan Williams
play with sponge not in self-defense, but because they
genuinely want to.
John and I also acknowledge that sponge players in general
have every bit as much right to trumpet their
Metallicaesque sponge skills as we hardbatters have to put
forth our case for making Mozart with a hard Hock.
We may be trashmen on the Internet, but John the Elder and
I are really old softies whose feelings are just as easily
hurt as anyone else's.
Perhaps we hardbatters should refrain from referring to you
latex lovers as gloopers, glue feinds, glue gods, junk
jockeys, junkmeisters, robotNazis, spineless chopper trash
who wear their ballcaps backward over their pierced ears,
drive sport utility vehicles and vote Republican.
Perhaps you sponge types, too, should stop referring to us
hardbat heroes as codgers, fossils, geezers, grannyballers,
Hock jockeys, and retroNazis who dress like Goths or
golfers, drive '51 Studebacker Champion 2-door coupes, and
vote Socialist (if we vote at all).
Please! Please!! Please!!! Can't we all just get along?
Nah. What fun would that be?
Berndt the Unreconstructed (who does not give a damn)
Mark Merritt
Terry Canup <canu...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
: Much has been said about the potential of the 40 mm ball and it's
[snip...]
: Congratulations to the countries of the ITTF that saw through this smoke
: and mirrors approach. Instead of us spending millions on changing our
: equipment, let's spend a fraction of that to hire somebody that actually
: knows what they are doing in marketing.
: Terry
Scott L. Burson
>
> [I]t makes no difference what equipment is used, its proponents are
> very unlikely to want to *switch*
Well, it's partly that. I think also, partly, some people have a natural
affinity for one style of game or the other.
Which is why I welcome the growth of the hardbat movement even though at the
moment I haven't joined it. It may attract players who are not naturally
interested in the sponge game.
> If nothing else results from our dialog, I've come to realize "which"
> game we play is unimportant...the fact that *more* of us play is.
Exactly.
-- Scott
Dpong2119
>that extremely boring. I don't want to watch a sport where men can wear
>wool pants and be a World Champion.
Judging by your comment, you must have missed the Ty Hoff - Lily Yip hardbat
final at the U.S.Open in Fort Lauderdale. I doubt that the large, screaming
crowd would have characterized the match as "boring".
Scott Gordon
(on vacation using a friend's account)
Terry Canup
:-)
Terry
Dpong2119 wrote:
> ....I don't want to watch a sport where men can wear
> >wool pants and be a World Champion.
>
> Judging by your comment, you must have missed the Ty Hoff - Lily Yip hardbat
> final at the U.S.Open in Fort Lauderdale. ....