TOP 5 U.S. TABLE TENNIS PLAYERS OF ALL TIME
BICENBKS
#1 Dal Joon Lee
#2 Dick Miles
#3 Alex Tam
#4 Marty Reisman
#5 Eric Boggan
#6 Dan Seemiller
#7 Gil Joon Park
#8 Peter Pradit
#9 John Tannehill
#10 (Honorable Mention) Paul Raphael, Sol Schiff, Atilla Malek,
Jim Butler, Sean O'Neill, Todd SweeNis & Fernando Roberts (for
his flamboyance and color), Also Rutledge Barry (& Steve Hammond),
who committed suicide. It's too bad there aren't more choppers on the
list since they're the most spectacular players of all. Arunkumar also
deserves honorable mention. I can think of no more spectacular U.S.
chopper than him.
I realize there were only 15 countries competing when Marty was #1,
but it's better to be #2 out of 15 than #20 out of 120, even for a third
world table-tennis nation.
HeSaidBye
is the geatest US Player of all time.
GOLFERADAM2
"BICENBKS" <bice...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040224002936...@mb-m29.aol.com...
> Arunkumar also
> deserves honorable mention. I can think of no more spectacular U.S.
> chopper than him.
He he Nice try moron
Were you consumed by guilt all last week for asking me to go back where I
came from.
You did not have the decency to apologize for making a racist comment but
now
trying to wash the blood off your hands. But have you heard of Luminol ? I
can see
right thru you buddy.
Moreover, I do not believe Arunkumar was an "American" at his peak.
The ITTF website only shows him representing India.
He may have played for US in some smaller tournaments past his peak.
Interestingly Derek May has to be highest rated native born sponge chopper
I think
(I may be wrong)
Nothing against him, but goes to show the extermination of choppers
worldwide.
Fuernado wasn't "American" either I don't think, at his peak.
Is he not back in the Windies no anyway ?
I thought the robotNazii Sean O'Neill with his great athleticism could have
been possibly
a world-class combo chopper, given his backhand was a solid .........1500 at
world class level.
I would say Eric Boggan was the greatest American player.
The 2 color rule ripped him off
But if you consider singles & doubles it has to be Dan Seemiller just like
John McEnroe
but in singles fact remains Sampras never one even one French on clay but
Borg won 6 (to add
to his 5 Wimbledons on grass ...........but no Australian / US not a big
deal as the surfaces or in between ? )
Anyway here is an upcoming solution for table-tennis abnormalities
Enjoy other WebPages as well
http://faq.ittf.info
http://racism.ittf.info
http://horrible.ittf.info
AJain17
How come you put Eric so low on the list? Might be a generation thing, but I
thought Eric was the most "accomplished" player that US has ever produced..?
Ashu
BICENBKS
In some respects, Eric might be #1, but
Danny was actually much stronger than
him domestically. Reisman was not nearly
as good as Miles domestically. Dal Joon
Lee was by far better than of the other besides Miles domestically.
Miles won 10 U.S. Nationals and reached
the semi-finals of the World's. Eric, I think, won what 2 Nationals and made
the round
of 16.
Lee didn't lose to an American for 5 straight years, playing hundreds of
matches.. We can't compare Eric
to Lee's complete domestic dominance,
Seemiller is the only player to compare
with Lee's domestic dominance from the
70's on, Cheng getting my vote for 3rd.
The other players all seem to have fared
better internationally, the single exception
being the Japan Open. In Division II at the
World's, Danny really was a tremendous
player. Sadly, we didn't have another player of his ability to ever get us
into the
First Division. It's pretty lame Canada
made the First Division and we didn't.
Danny and Eric both toppled those guys regularly.
Mark Kent
>> Danny and Eric both toppled those guys regularly.
And visa-versa.
-mark
BICENBKS
had a pretty lousy record against Johnny
Wong. Kosonovic was another Canadian
import who really had their number.
caccobio10
there aren't so many more Johnny Huang clones?
m
"BICENBKS" <bice...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040227110306...@mb-m15.aol.com...
lefty william
"caccobio10" <cacco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WZ40c.6067$id3.5669@fed1read01...
> with such an effective style, and such longevity,
> I've never understood why
> there aren't so many more Johnny Huang clones?
Because he is an abnormal table-tennis player and no self-rspecting
Aryan would get caught with an abnormal rubber on even one side
of their racket let alone two sides. ?
You will understand this better when the discussion panel below
give full details of cure for such Asian diseases in May 2004.
BICENBKS
the South somewhere, in Missouri I think.
He idolizes Johnny Wong to the extent of
dressing like him, eating the same foods,
even combing his hair like him. His name
is Dan Thueber. I think he even legally changed his name to "Johnny Wong II",
he certainly played some tournaments under that name. If you ever see him at a
tournament, be sure to talk to him about Johnny Wong, that's mainly what he
talks
about. He does a lot of intense drilling with
robots and apparently his home looks something like an ultra moder fitness
facility. He's been training esp. intensively the last 10 or 12 years with the
Johnny Wong technique and rated in the 1200 range, I think. He's a pretty big,
hulky guy, I think.
BICENBKS
top all time player Tahl. I guess Mike Dempsey is still the only "World Champ"
we've ever had though. That guy was pretty amazing. His only weakness was
against very high (60-70 foot) lobs.
caccobio10
back east who back in the 80's had bruce lee pictures on their walls (and
cindy crawford)...
m
"BICENBKS" <bice...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040228153417...@mb-m03.aol.com...
caccobio10
pips 2.0 on both sides, fast attacking style).
m
"BICENBKS" <bice...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040228153417...@mb-m03.aol.com...
MFBaltaxe
>there aren't so many more Johnny Huang clones?
>m
I think it is hard to play that style and less safe than looping. Also, except
for China, no one coaches that style
MFBaltaxe
>robots and apparently his home looks something like an ultra moder fitness
>facility. He's been training esp. intensively the last 10 or 12 years with
>the
>Johnny Wong technique and rated in the 1200 range, I think
not so great after 10 years of intense training. Maybe it is a difficult style
to master
Denis
"MFBaltaxe" <mfba...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040228220317...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> >with such an effective style, and such longevity, I've never understood
why
> >there aren't so many more Johnny Huang clones?
> >m
>
> I think it is hard to play that style and less safe than looping.
No kidding :)
Why bother with mastering basic skills when you can get away with
child-abuse chemicals obtain ridiculous error margins and also look cool,
while your racket does all the work..
MFBaltaxe
>
>No kidding :)
>
see we agree on something
LARRYTTI
> >> I think it is hard to play that style and less safe than looping.
> >
> >No kidding :)
> >
>
> see we agree on something
Yeah but does that make you any less of a self-admitted robotNazi or a
racist ?
HeSaidBye
>How come you put Eric so low on the list? Might be a generation thing, but I
>thought Eric was the most "accomplished" player that US has ever produced..?
>Ashu
I agree.
BICENBKS
of any U.S. player in modern times, esp.
overseas.
I guess it's hard to compare those hard
rubber guys with modern champions, esp.
since the game hadn't really evolved yet
and was only played in 10 or 12 countries. The game was at a very
elementary phase, now it's far more "3
dimensional" and infinitely more complex.
It's like tinker toys compared to the modern
game, but was very nice to watch.
MFBaltaxe
>game, but was very nice to watch.
>
>
>
>
>
>
lol
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: It's like tinker toys compared to the modern game,
Just wanted to mention that, for the record, there are
people out there such as myself who believe otherwise.
Scott
Berndt Mann
(in message <20040318032123...@mb-m03.aol.com>):
> I guess it's hard to compare those hard
> rubber guys with modern champions, esp.
> since the game hadn't really evolved yet
Tournament players in the early 1900s, whether using vellum-covered
"banjo" bats, wood, cork-covered, or pimpled-rubber covered rackets,
understood and incorporated topspin, underspin and sidespin into their
services and into their play. 1930s fingerspin and knucklespin
services, some high-toss with the server's back to the receiver, were
as sophisticated and difficult to return for 1930s players as today's
semi-illegal serves are for 21st century glockpongers. According to
Victor Barna, the stroke hit with exaggerated topspin later known as
the loop drive "is not entirely a new stroke for it has been used as
long as I can remember" (Table Tennis Today, Barna, 1962, p. 17).
Barna began playing table tennis in his early teens in the mid-1920s.
> and was only played in 10 or 12 countries.
Players from nine countries competed in the first ITTF World Table
Tennis Championships held in 1926. By 1955, when Angelica Rozeanu won
the last World Singles title won using a hard rubber racket, players
from thirty-three different countries were competing.
> The game was at a very elementary phase, now it's far more "3
> dimensional" and infinitely more complex.
As for the game being "at a very elementary phase", see my above
comments. As for today's game being "far more '3 dimensional'", it
seems to me that at least at the elite and world class levels it is far
more "one dimensional", compared with the best hard rubber play in the
late 1930s and late 1940s to mid-1950s. Much of this, it also seems to
me, is due to the "infinitely more complex" task of trying, especially
at these levels, let alone at the levels at which most of us
competitors play, to play with rubbers glued to the gills affording far
more spin and pace (i.e. speed after the bounce) than even the world's
best are capable of controlling for generally more than 5 to 10 strokes
at a time, tops. A ten to twenty ball rally would have been considered
routine to low routine by your best hardbatters in the first and second
classic eras (late 1920s to WWII, post WWII to mid-1950s). These days
such a rally will get you on a Table Tennis Absolutely Beyond Friggin'
Belief videotape or DVD.
> It's like tinker toys compared to the modern
> game, but was very nice to watch.
Glockpong is like the Microsoft blue screen of death compared to the
MacIntosh reliability of classic table tennis, but if you got 3.6
gigahertz reflexes and a 1.2 nanosecond attention span, I suppose it
could be eXtremely cool in eXtremely short doses.
Berndt Mann
Chico
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 3:21:23 -0500, BICENBKS wrote
> (in message <20040318032123...@mb-m03.aol.com>):
>
> > I guess it's hard to compare those hard
> > rubber guys with modern champions, esp.
> > since the game hadn't really evolved yet
>
> "Tournament players in the early 1900s, whether using vellum-covered
> "banjo" bats, wood, cork-covered, or pimpled-rubber covered rackets,
> understood and incorporated topspin, underspin and sidespin into their
> services and into their play."
but didnt generate MUCH topspin, MUCH underspin or MUCH sidespin due
to inferior equipement and lack of skill or co-ordination.
"A ten to twenty ball rally would have been considered routine to low
routine by your best hardbatters in the first and second classic eras
(late 1920s to WWII, post WWII to mid-1950s)"
a 3-5 shot high end rally trumps a 10-20 shot no talent, no skill low
end rally any day of the week redendreamer.
Burnt Popcorn
Berndt Mann
(in message <3b1bb7b6.04031...@posting.google.com>):
> Berndt Mann <bjgm...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:<0001HW.BC7F5D58...@news.supernews.com>...
>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 3:21:23 -0500, BICENBKS wrote
>> (in message <20040318032123...@mb-m03.aol.com>):
>>
>>> I guess it's hard to compare those hard
>>> rubber guys with modern champions, esp.
>>> since the game hadn't really evolved yet
>>
>> "Tournament players in the early 1900s, whether using vellum-covered
>> "banjo" bats, wood, cork-covered, or pimpled-rubber covered rackets,
>> understood and incorporated topspin, underspin and sidespin into their
>> services and into their play."
>
>
> but didnt generate MUCH topspin, MUCH underspin or MUCH sidespin due
> to inferior equipement and lack of skill or co-ordination.
>
>
> "A ten to twenty ball rally would have been considered routine to low
> routine by your best hardbatters in the first and second classic eras
> (late 1920s to WWII, post WWII to mid-1950s)"
I see no particular need to apologize, least of all to you, on behalf
of early 20th century competitors such as Parker, Bromfield, and Goode
for their lack of 21st century equipment with 21st century glue
augmented topspin and sidespin or long pip augmented underspin.
Players such as these played as well as they could with the equipment
and technology available to them. Given your recent results against
Larry Hodges using modern 21st century equipment, which BTW you refuse
to acknowledge through sending an unedited videotape of your
performance to Larry, I strongly suspect that were you an early 1900s
player with a banjo bat, wood bat, cork bat or prehistoric hardbat
players such as the abovementioned would have wiped the floor with the
likes of you.
> a 3-5 shot high end rally trumps a 10-20 shot no talent, no skill low
> end rally any day of the week redendreamer.
Apparently, according to Larry Hodges' account of his two matches
against you, told to me at the Buckeye Open, there were neither 3-5
shot "high end" rallies nor 10-20 shot "no talent, no skill low end"
rallies, inasmuch as you were neither capable of dispatching Larry with
3-5 "high end" shots nor even capable of keeping the ball in play
within 10-20 shot "no talent, no skill low end" parameters.
Berndt Mann
> Burnt Popcorn
Chico
No player prior to 1950 could beat me or the Sword at table tennis.
I understand your frustration and anguish dealing with this reality.
And yes, I agree, Hodges getting his ass kicked by a 524 rated player
is embarrassing.
Chico Vesence
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: No player prior to 1950 could beat me or the Sword at table tennis.
You really are living in a fantasy world. I would hazard a guess that
*any* of the players competing in the 1947 Paris world championships
would beat you, even if you used your sponge paddle. They would all
have beaten me too, so don't feel so bad.
Scott
Craig Oldfield
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com burbled happily...
Technically he is correct, he wasn't born so they couldn't beat him,
however, if he is claiming that he is a better player than anyone who
was around in that era, that's a different matter.
--
Craig Oldfield
Chico
I would hazard to guess that **not one** of the players in Paris could
beat me or my master, The Cyberswordsman. They were inferior athletes
in every sense of the word.
Chico Reality Break
Berndt Mann
wrote
(in message <w8Z6c.864$Fo4....@typhoon.sonic.net>):
Heavens to Hansor, Scott, I'd go so far as to hazard a guess that any
of the players competing in the 1926 London world championships would
have crucified our Beckmesser of pong, sponge security blanket or no.
Jacobi, Mechlovits, and Pesci would have toyed with him. Suppiah and
Joan Ingram would've chopped him down without breaking a sweat. Maria
Mednyanszky wouldn't have spent any of her valuable time messing with
this mope; she'd have simply strutted up to the table and blown him off
it.
Based on this spud's videos and the 1928 Montagu movie short featuring
all the above mentioned, I'd have to give our Cyberposer a 10-15 point
handicap against them, 7 to 12 against the field, maybe 5 to 10 against
Bromfield, last of the battledore boys. Percy might have had a little
bit of trouble smashing a decent lob (according to Larry, the only
thing remotely resembling a weapon Anderson's got in his lacklarder
arsenal), due to using that tiny teardrop rapier of his, but once he
began dialing in and finding the range against our Cyberfakir he'd
probably dress out the winner at, oh maybe 21-14, 21-14, 21-11.
Berndt
MFBaltaxe
>of the players competing in the 1926 London world championships would
>have crucified our Beckmesser of pong, sponge security blanket or no.
>
>Jacobi, Mechlovits, and Pesci would have toyed with him. Suppiah and
>Joan Ingram would've chopped him down without breaking a sweat. Maria
>Mednyanszky wouldn't have spent any of her valuable time messing with
>this mope; she'd have simply strutted up to the table and blown him off
>it.
>
>Based on this spud's videos and the 1928 Montagu movie short featuring
>all the above mentioned, I'd have to give our Cyberposer a 10-15 point
>handicap against them, 7 to 12 against the field, maybe 5 to 10 against
>Bromfield, last of the battledore boys. Percy might have had a little
>bit of trouble smashing a decent lob (according to Larry, the only
>thing remotely resembling a weapon Anderson's got in his lacklarder
>arsenal), due to using that tiny teardrop rapier of his, but once he
>began dialing in and finding the range against our Cyberfakir he'd
>probably dress out the winner at, oh maybe 21-14, 21-14, 21-11.
>
>Berndt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
you are high , regardless of how good Ricky is, how could they possibly adapt
to inverted thet quickly ? Maybe after some practice, but initially, no chance
Berndt Mann
(in message <20040320160559...@mb-m28.aol.com>):
>> Heavens to Hansor, Scott, I'd go so far as to hazard a guess that any
>> of the players competing in the 1926 London world championships would
>> have crucified our Beckmesser of pong, sponge security blanket or no.
>>
>> Jacobi, Mechlovits, and Pesci would have toyed with him. Suppiah and
>> Joan Ingram would've chopped him down without breaking a sweat. Maria
>> Mednyanszky wouldn't have spent any of her valuable time messing with
>> this mope; she'd have simply strutted up to the table and blown him off
>> it.
>>
>> Based on this spud's videos and the 1928 Montagu movie short featuring
>> all the above mentioned, I'd have to give our Cyberposer a 10-15 point
>> handicap against them, 7 to 12 against the field, maybe 5 to 10 against
>> Bromfield, last of the battledore boys. Percy might have had a little
>> bit of trouble smashing a decent lob (according to Larry, the only
>> thing remotely resembling a weapon Anderson's got in his lacklarder
>> arsenal), due to using that tiny teardrop rapier of his, but once he
>> began dialing in and finding the range against our Cyberfakir he'd
>> probably dress out the winner at, oh maybe 21-14, 21-14, 21-11.
>>
>> Berndt
>>
>>
>
> you are high ,
Be civil, good sir: I am the Protestant whore, and would not lay a dog
where a deer laid.
(Whoa Nellie! Where in the name of Good King Chuck did that rejoinder
come from??!! Never, ever, ever do 'ludes and wash 'em down with a
Columbian from Cup O' Joe's.)
> regardless of how good Ricky is, how could they possibly adapt
> to inverted thet quickly ? Maybe after some practice, but initially, no
> chance
You do gotta remember, Michael, that it's not exactly as though they'd
be going up against a superglooped Kreanga or Wang Nan, both of whom
might actually have stood a chance of annihilating these prehistoric
pongers with weapons of mass destruction they, unlike our hapless and
hipless hero the Cyberplasticknifeinahappymealman, actually know how to
wield.
Besides, by 1926 pong had already gone through hollow vellum-covered
"banjo" bats, gut-strung "tennis" bats, wood bats, cork bats, sandpaper
bats, hard bats, crepe bats, leather bats, cardboard bats, canvas bats,
glass-paper bats, rope bats, baize bats, felt bats, and yes, even
sponge! If Ivor Montagu, our commie/spy/filmmaker/naturalist/peace
activist/sponge loving first Chairman and President of the ITTF
couldn't get out of the round of 64 in '26 probably using whatever his
perhaps Jaques inspired sponge rig was, what chance of a Good Humor bar
in summertime Teheran could our 1100 and some change Canadian rated
Cyberwaterbugonawaterlilyrollin'downtheriverwithaboneryellin'raisethedra
wbridge possibly have against the likes of your Pescis, Jacobis,
Mechlovitses, and Medyanszkys even with a Stiga Carbo shod with Carbo
Sound, glued to the gunwales with Carbo glue?
Apparently according to Larry Hodges the only thing that dear boy can
do even a little bit is lob. Here's what Corny Schaad has to say about
that sort of sissy stuff in his 1930 book Ping-Pong, the Game, Its
Tactics and Laws: "....In Ping-Pong, however, lobs are rarely used by
expert players. A lob is used only when the player is so pressed that
he cannot make any other return....Nothing is more suicidal than a
short lob; it is as discouraging as a fault in the service at a
critical juncture and generally just as costly."
MFBaltaxe
>where a deer laid.
my apologies good sir, that was a little strong
>You do gotta remember, Michael, that it's not exactly as though they'd
>be going up against a superglooped Kreanga or Wang Nan, both of whom
>might actually have stood a chance of annihilating these prehistoric
>pongers with weapons of mass destruction
Well I think they would have difficulty scoring a point initially against world
class players. How could they score a point ?
>Humor bar
>in summertime Teheran could our 1100 and some change Canadian rated
>Cyberwaterbugonawaterlilyrollin'downtheriverwithaboneryellin'raisethedra
>wbridge possibly have against the likes of your Pescis, Jacobis,
>Mechlovitses, and Medyanszkys even with a Stiga Carbo shod wit
He doesnt have to be that good, his equipment would be the difference maker.
Imagine Bill Tilden playing Mr. Roddick
Larry Hodges
maker.
> Imagine Bill Tilden playing Mr. Roddick
A 1500 player isn't going to challenge the better hardbat players from the
past whether he uses sponge, glue, whatever.
-Larry Hodges
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Chico
The no talent pre 1950 players, like your own game redenhasbeen, sucks
shit...hairy moose shit to be exact. Deal with it old man and like
the slave you are bow to my masters dominance.
For more on how to play table tennis..the real way..see my master
along with other champions at www.cyberswordsman.com
Stick to the popcorn commercials orville.
Heil Swordsman
Chico
Exactly. I would take it further and say say "never" though. No
chance intially and never.
Chico Vesence
Berndt Mann
(in message <3b1bb7b6.04032...@posting.google.com>):
5,3,3,0,3,6,4,1.
You don't seem to be able to play 21st century table tennis all that
well. What in Holzrichter's holy name makes you think you'd be able to
play pre-1950 style table tennis at all?
But in case you'd like to put any money where your transcendentally
insolent foul mouth is, here are the stakes. U.S. Open. 5 21-point
games. 500 dollars (American) a game. Identical 3-ply Tatco Falcon
pre-1950 hard rubber rackets. Halex No. 1 pre-1950 balls. Pre-1950
services and pre-1950 service rules. I'll play straight classical
table tennis shakehand, no reverse penholds.
Should you accept this challenge, which I doubt, I'll throw in an extra
bonus to sweeten the pot so you'll go away a little less destitute, as
I'll go so far as to hazard a guess I'm gonna be able to beat you like
a red-headed stepchild all five games. I'll deduct ten bucks a point
for every point over 11 you get in any particular game.
P.S.: The U.S. Open is a sanctioned tournament open even to Canadians.
I would go so far as to hazard a guess that Larry Hodges will be there.
I believe you expressed a desire to play him at a sanctioned
tournament. The U.S. Open is as good a tournament as any.
Bullshit talks. Money walks. Show me and Larry Hodges your money, and
show Larry Hodges the tapes.
Berndt Mann
2001 U-1500 North American Hard Rubber Singles Champion
(penhold/reverse penhold)
2001 U-1500 National Hard Rubber Singles Champion (penhold/reverse
penhold)
2002 U-1500 U.S. Open Hard Rubber Singles Finalist (shakehand)
2003 U-1500 U.S. Open Hard Rubber Singles Champion (shakehand)
Berndt Mann
(in message <3b1bb7b6.04032...@posting.google.com>):
> mfba...@aol.com (MFBaltaxe) wrote in message
Frankly, my dear, although I, like Larry Hodges, would strongly hazard
a guess you'd get your clock cleaned, even using your hide under your
mother's skirt contemporary feather pillow of a rig, this hypothetical
isn't really of all that much interest to me.
What is interesting to me is your insolent and ignorant claim that
pre-1950 table tennis pretty much "sucks shit".
I would hazard a guess to doubt very much, given your spanking at the
hands of a quite capable 21st century table tennis player, that you'd
be any more than last table at Lawrence's tolerably sorry at pre-1950
table tennis.
I will go further as to hazard a guess to doubt very much that you'd be
anywhere near even stout enough to hold the table against a
Bettleheim-style blocker at pre-1930 table tennis.
Tell you what. I'll offer you a choice. Meet me at the upcoming U.S.
Open and I'll play you for the stakes mentioned under the conditions
set forth in a previous post with either your choice of pre-1950 Tatco
Falcon hard rubber rackets or pre-1930 sandpaper teardrop shaped
rackets with octagonal handles such as might have been used in the 1926
World Championships.
Berndt Mann
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: you are high , regardless of how good Ricky is, how could they
: possibly adapt to inverted thet quickly ? Maybe after some
: practice, but initially, no chance
At the 1997 Nationals, I had the thrill of watching a 67-year-old
hardbat-wielding way-over-the-hill Reisman defeat ~2200 U.S. team
aspirant serve-and-looping Michelle Do in a rated match (she was
using sponge of course). That leaves me with little doubt that a
1949 Reisman, in his prime and just off a British Open championship
victory, would have little trouble handling an under-1400 lobber...
particularly one who can't even beat the magazine editor, even when
the latter uses a clipboard for a paddle.
Who's high?
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: The no talent pre 1950 players, like your own game redenhasbeen, sucks
: shit...hairy moose shit to be exact.
Several of them are still alive and rated significantly higher than
you, even now at their advanced ages. If they are "hairy moose shit",
what should we infer about you?
Scott
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: They were inferior athletes in every sense of the word.
Richard Bergmann ran several miles daily. How does that compare
with the sword?
Scott
Berndt Mann
wrote
(in message <f8a7c.950$Fo4....@typhoon.sonic.net>):
Fred Perry won the 1929 World Men's Singles table tennis championship.
As a tennis player, he won three Wimbledons (1934-1936), three U.S.
Opens (1933, 1934, 1936), one French Open (1935) and one Australian
Open (1934). In Davis Cup play, Perry won 45 of 52 matches. How does
that compare with the sword?
Berndt Mann
MFBaltaxe
>past whether he uses sponge, glue, whatever.
>
>-Larry Hodges
not sure I agree, at least initially
MFBaltaxe
>Open and I'll play you for the stakes mentioned under the conditions
>set forth in a previous post with either your choice of pre-1950 Tatco
>Falcon hard rubber rackets or pre-1930 sandpaper teardrop shaped
>rackets with octagonal handles such as might have been used in the 1926
>World Championships.
>
>Berndt Mann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I would pay to watch that
MFBaltaxe
>hardbat-wielding way-over-the-hill Reisman defeat ~2200 U.S. team
>aspirant serve-and-looping Michelle Do in a rated match (she was
>using sponge of course). That leaves me with little doubt that a
>1949 Reisman, in his prime and just off a British Open championship
>victory, would have little trouble handling an under-1400 lobber...
>particularly one who can't even beat the magazine editor, even when
>the latter uses a clipboard for a paddle.
>
>Who's high?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
years and understands it, so he can use hard rubber. My point was that
initially they could not adapt
If I am so high, how did Satoh win the worlds ?
Other Larry
It's before my time, but can I assume that DJ Lee and Alex Tam were
already accomplished players when they arrived in the US? If so, then
I would have to give Cheng Yinghua and David Zhuang much consideration
as well.
Larry Hodges
Seriously - you think a 1500 player could challenge, even the first time
out, a champion hardbat player from the 1940s or so? I've seen the tapes of
these players, and know how top players adjust. They aren't robots - they
adjust to the way an opponent plays. If the player with sponge were good, it
would be one thing, but 1500 isn't even close enough to challenge. Perhaps
at a 2000 level there might be a challenge the first time out. Just because
they haven't seen a loop before doesn't mean they won't realize, after
putting the first one off the end, that they simply have to close their
racket - and a 1500 loop isn't much of a loop yet. A 1500 player, against
these player's shots (changing spins, placements, quick angled shots, etc.),
is going to make less than half his loops anyway. When a loop does come
back, the 1500 will be helpless on the next shot - he won't be able to loop
it, and anything else he does is going to be hit past him.
Larry Hodges
Satoh was already one of the best players in Japan, ranked somewhere in the
top 10, before he went to sponge.
Chico
If you're talking about old time clowns like Marty he couldn't get two
points off me or the Cyberswordsman. In his heyday he could probably
get 3-4. Thats after we let him fill our water bottle and run for
muffins.
Chico Reality Break
MFBaltaxe
>out, a champion hardbat player from the 1940s or so? I've seen the tapes of
>these players, and know how top players adjust. They aren't robots - they
>adjust to the way an opponent plays. If the player with sponge were good, it
>would be one thing, but 1500 isn't even close enough to challenge. Perhaps
>at a 2000 level there might be a challenge the first time out. Just because
>they haven't seen a loop before doesn't mean they won't realize, after
>putting the first one off the end, that they simply have to close their
>racket - and a 1500 loop isn't much of a loop yet. A 1500 player, against
>these player's shots (changing spins, placements, quick angled shots, etc.),
>is going to make less than half his loops anyway. When a loop does come
>back, the 1500 will be helpless on the next shot - he won't be able to loop
>it, and anything else he does is going to be hit past him.
>
>-Larry Hodges
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
______
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
>http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
><><><><><><><><>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
is a game based on trained reaction and they would not have trained in any
fashion for this
I can think of 2 good analogies from the modern era. Huang Liang had really
different equipment, nobody in Europe had practiced against it before and he
made the europeans look like they could not play. I think he shut out Stellwag,
a world class player. This is a way lesser change than sponge to hardbat.
asimilsr argument could be made for John Hiltons success
When the chinese came out with high toss services they were unreturnable. I
had some experience with this. The problem was the difference and the lack of
training
Anyhow, it is an interesting question
MFBaltaxe
>top 10, before he went to sponge.
>
>-Larry Hodges
>
top 10 in Japan is a far cry from world champion. Better question is what was
his world ranking ?
MFBaltaxe
DJ lEE was already great when he got here
Larry Hodges
he went to long pips. We're talking about a 1500 player whose loop will hit
less than half the time against angled and varied returns, so if none are
returned, he'll still lose. When they do hit, they'll be way too soft to
give the other player any trouble reacting to it. The first time they chop
one high, they'll simply aim lower. If they do pop it up, what do you think
a 1500 player will do with a high chop? He'll miss well over half the
smashes. And if he does get the smash on, a 1500 smash is easy to return for
these players. (Note that spin takes less on a hardbat - it's easy to float
back a loop with hardbat, returning the looper's spin.)
It's a myth that hardbatters (past or present) did not use much topspin. Ty
Hoff's hardbat loop is spinnier than nearly any 1500 player with sponge.
When the 1500 player does loop (which won't happen much, since a top
hardbatter will take that shot away from him), it won't be much spinnier
than anything they've seen. It's a basic now and then that when the ball has
more topspin, you simply aim lower.
When the 1500 player serves, even with sponge, he'll have no more spin on
the serve than some of the past hardbat players - that's why he's 1500. (If
he did have good spin, some other part of his game would have to be much
worse than 1500 to make up for it.) The opposing hardbatter has only to
angle his return to set up his attack, taking the loop away from the 1500
player. And when the hardbatter serves, he'll simply serve short and attack,
again taking the loop away from the 1500 player.
Bottom line - equipment won't help a 1500 player against a world class
hardbatter of the past, any more than speed glue would help a 1500 player
against a world class player from the 1970s, before speed glue. A basement
player closer to 1500 than a 1500 player is to a world class hardbatter. The
level is too low to be even compared.
Heck, I played a beat a 1502 player in a recent "challenge" using a
mini-tape recorder - and did so by simply angling returns so he couldn't
attack. Imagine how many leagues better world-class hardbatters of the past
are compared to me playing with a mini tape recorder!
-Larry Hodges
"MFBaltaxe" <mfba...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040321121744...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> Hard to say, I dont think they would get one loop back for awhile. Table
tennis
> is a game based on trained reaction and they would not have trained in any
> fashion for this
> I can think of 2 good analogies from the modern era. Huang Liang had
really
> different equipment, nobody in Europe had practiced against it before and
he
> made the europeans look like they could not play. I think he shut out
Stellwag,
> a world class player. This is a way lesser change than sponge to hardbat.
> asimilsr argument could be made for John Hiltons success
> When the chinese came out with high toss services they were
unreturnable. I
> had some experience with this. The problem was the difference and the lack
of
> training
> Anyhow, it is an interesting question
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Larry Hodges
I don't know his world ranking, but if the guy's top ten in a country that's
about to dominate table tennis for the next decade (as Japan was about to
do), he's many, many leagues ahead of a 1500 player!
Bruce H. Liu
> You miss my point professor. Mr Reisman has been playing against sponge for 40
> years and understands it, so he can use hard rubber. My point was that
> initially they could not adapt
> If I am so high, how did Satoh win the worlds ?
Satoh was definitely not a 1500 level player. Have you ever
watched the legend tape? How could you possibly be right on this?
/Bruce
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: If I am so high, how did Satoh win the worlds ?
Satoh was a member of the Japanese team before he every played
with sponge. He was not a 1500 level player. Furthermore, he
was using 1" thick sponge... that plays significantly wierder
than anything in use today. Plus, several of the unsuspecting
hardbatters still got games off of Satoh.
Scott
Berndt Mann
(in message <3b1bb7b6.04032...@posting.google.com>):
> sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote in message
Hmm. You seem to have this quaint and curious notion that playing with
a silk purse of a 21st century rig will somehow Excaliburize your sad
sagging sow's ear of a game. Moreover, you have seen fit, in your own
crap everywhere but the newspaper unhousebroken puppyish way, to
characterize world class table tennis players who played table tennis
before 1950 as--how may I put this delicately and discreetly--nothing
more than no-talent hairy moose shit suckers.
This ain't Burger King, chief. You can't have it your way.
If pre-1950 table tennis was nothing more than a hairy moose shit
sucking game played solely by nobody but no-talent hairy moose shit
suckers, well then, Bullwinkle, I'd have every right and reason to
expect that you'd be, beyond the wildest dreams of the late great Joe
Greene even, the hairiest, the greatest, the most talented hairy moose
shit sucker of a player at pre-1950 table tennis who has ever lived or
ever gonna live.
But it ain't. And you ain't.
There are frat rats in frat houses all over North America who can beat
you at pre-1950 table tennis on brewski-sweetened tables.
There are firefighters in firehouses, Amish in hay barns, barflies in
juke joints, and toddlers in preschools who can beat you at pre-1950
table tennis.
There are prisoners in county jails, pensioners playing Tuesday
afternoon social pong at senior centers, middle schoolers ponging
merrily during lunch period on homeroom sawhorse tables, and jarheads
in Bob Hope slept here USOs who can beat you at pre-1950 table tennis.
There are at least two of my good buddies who are themselves pre-1950
table tennis players who can beat you like a wet Afghan rug at pre-1950
table tennis. I myself am fully capable of beating you like the daddy
you never knew at pre-1950 table tennis.
You couldn't get 3-5 points off Billy Bob Bodine at the ElDorado Bar
and Grill at Morse and N. High here in Columbus, even if BBB were
generous enough to give you the only table-eaten (foam) sponge paddle
in the joint with both handle pieces on it while he went with the
dessicated black-pebbled whisky-aged wonder with which he's been
holding the table all through the cheerful distraction of NCAA March
Madness basketball on the house tubes.
As for how you'd do against a Marty Reisman at pre-1950 table tennis
past or present, let's just put it to you true in a manner and fashion
congruent to your understanding, wit, and taste.
Marty Reisman has shit bigger than you. Big, happy, healthy hairy
moose shit if you like, but were you ever to play him past or present
you'd be in it from your athlete's foot sneakers to your Right
(un)Guard(ed) pits.
Berndt Mann
Mark Kent
>> mini-tape recorder - and did so by simply angling returns so he couldn't
>> attack. Imagine how many leagues better world-class hardbatters of the past
>> are compared to me playing with a mini tape recorder!
Bingo! And that is exactly how a 1949 world class hardbatter would
beat any current U1500 player.. by pick-hitting him to death.
The 1500 player would probably have to default before the end of the
match due to the developing blisters on his feet.
And I'ld guess that after a week or two of practice versus sponge
the same thing could be said for any current U2000 player.
But doesn't the fact that we have a tournament-active,
1988 rated, 74 year old right now make this obvious?
-mark
MFBaltaxe
>watched the legend tape? How could you possibly be right on this?
>
>/Bruce
>
You might be right we will never know. As a talking point , at what level would
a modern inverted glue player beat a champion of yesterday who never played
against inverted ? I believe it is way lower than you and the other hardbatters
think
MFBaltaxe
>When the 1500 player does loop (which won't happen much, since a top
>hardbatter will take that shot away from him), it won't be much spinnier
>than anything they've seen.
doubt that seriously
>When the 1500 player serves, even with sponge, he'll have no more spin on
>the serve than some of the past hardbat players - that's why he's 1500.
suffice to say we can agree to disagree
MFBaltaxe
inverted looper. What you guys are missing is that there was no looping before-
a stroke which completely changed the game
MFBaltaxe
>points off me or the Cyberswordsman. In his heyday he could probably
>get 3-4. Thats after we let him fill our water bottle and run for
>muffins.
>
>Chico Reality Break
>
>
>
>
>
>
Now you are high
Larry Hodges
news:86isgx5...@noc.mainstreet.net...
> >> Heck, I played a beat a 1502 player in a recent "challenge" using a
> >> mini-tape recorder - and did so by simply angling returns so he
couldn't
> >> attack. Imagine how many leagues better world-class hardbatters of the
past
> >> are compared to me playing with a mini tape recorder!
>
> Bingo! And that is exactly how a 1949 world class hardbatter would
> beat any current U1500 player.. by pick-hitting him to death.
Or by floating every ball back, i.e. chopping. The first time they chop long
they'd simply aim lower. They wouldn't have to chop vigorously since all
they have to do is get about half the loops back to win easily, since the
1500 player's going to miss so many of his own loops. In reality, they'd get
nearly all of them back after seeing one or two 1500 loops.
I'd love to see how long it would take a Richard Bergmann, Johnny Leach or
Victor Barna to adjust to my inverted looping, serves, countering, etc.
(2200 level), but that's a separate discusion.
-Larry Hodges
> The 1500 player would probably have to default before the end of the
> match due to the developing blisters on his feet.
>
> And I'ld guess that after a week or two of practice versus sponge
> the same thing could be said for any current U2000 player.
>
> But doesn't the fact that we have a tournament-active,
> 1988 rated, 74 year old right now make this obvious?
>
> -mark
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Larry Hodges
would
> a modern inverted glue player beat a champion of yesterday who never
played
> against inverted ? I believe it is way lower than you and the other
hardbatters
> think
I had this very discussion with Marty Reisman and Dick Miles. Both agreed
that if I, a 2200 player playing with sponge and glue, with modern loops,
serves, countering, etc., were transported back to 1952, I'd have probably
beaten everyone first time out, although it wouldn't have been easy.
However, both agreed that the second time out, I'd be in trouble.
-Larry Hodges
Larry Hodges
> yeah Ok Satoh with 1 inch thick sponge is wierder to a hardbatter than an
> inverted looper. What you guys are missing is that there was no looping
before-
> a stroke which completely changed the game
We're talking about a ***1500*** looper!!! When the hardbatter quick pushes
the serve back, how often is the 1500 player going to get a good loop off?
(Almost never, and if he tries to force it, he'll miss over half.) When the
hardbatter serves, all he has to do is serve short and quick hit the next
ball, and the 1500 player can't loop. So the loop never enters into the
equation.
If the 1500 player does loop, all the hardbatter has to do is stick his
racket out and float the ball back. There's nothing special about that. All
they have to do is get the ball back, and they win the point since the 1500
player can't effectively attack twice in a row.
The top hardbatters of the past wouldn't be challenged by modern players
unless the modern player is strong enough to force the loop. A 1500 player
is several levels too weak to do that.
Berndt Mann
(in message <20040322002359...@mb-m02.aol.com>):
An interesting question. Fulltime hard rubber players such as John
Tannehill and Steve Berger, who have played with some frequency against
inverted glue players, are certainly capable of beating them at the
2250-2300 level. It should be noted that Tannehill will soon be 52
years old; Steve Berger is somewhere in his late forties.
I would hazard a guess that, once they got acclimated to modern
inverted and glue, in their prime players such as Bergmann, Leach,
Vana, Sido, Miles and Reisman could be competitive against modern day
speed gloopers up to about the 2500 level. We're talkin' a good
400-450 points rating inflation with respect to glue vs. hard rubber
here.
A modern day 2250 level speed glooper would most likely give them
trouble, however, on their initial meeting against a speed gloop
followup to a notquitelegal serve.
A more interesting question to me, however, is up to what level would a
champion of yesterday (say pre-1950) beat an inverted glue player of
today who had never played with a hardbat?
To put this more vividly, how well do you think Jim Butler might have
done in his first hardbat/hardbat competitive play if he had had to
face the 19-year old Reisman who downed Victor Barna to win the 1949
British Open, rather than the 68-year old Reisman who downed Larry
Hodges to win the 1997 National Hard Rubber Singles championship?
Berndt Mann
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: You might be right we will never know. As a talking point , at what
: level would a modern inverted glue player beat a champion of yesterday
: who never played against inverted ? I believe it is way lower than you
: and the other hardbatters think
The most qualified individual on this board to answer your question
would probably be Larry Hodges. I could give my opinion, but I think
I'd rather not be so presumptuous. Yes, I do think it's way higher
than you think it is, based on the anecdotal evidence I've heard.
Scott
MFBaltaxe
>that if I, a 2200 player playing with sponge and glue, with modern loops,
>serves, countering, etc., were transported back to 1952, I'd have probably
>beaten everyone first time out, although it wouldn't have been easy.
>However, both agreed that the second time out, I'd be in trouble.
>
>-Larry Hodges
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
______
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
>http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
><><><><><><><><>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
MFBaltaxe
>the serve back, how often is the 1500 player going to get a good loop off?
>(Almost never, and if he tries to force it, he'll miss over half.) When the
>hardbatter serves, all he has to do is serve short and quick hit the next
>ball, and the 1500 player can't loop. So the loop never enters into the
>equation.
>
>If the 1500 player does loop, all the hardbatter has to do is stick his
>racket out and float the ball back. There's nothing special about that. All
>they have to do is get the ball back, and they win the point since the 1500
>player can't effectively attack twice in a row.
>
>The top hardbatters of the past wouldn't be challenged by modern players
>unless the modern player is strong enough to force the loop. A 1500 player
>is several levels too weak to do that.
>
>-Larry Hodges
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
______
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
>http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
><><><><><><><><>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
well we dont agree, but thats cool. I do agree that the more the hardbatter
played against inverted, the better he would be
FengYue
> Hard to say, I dont think they would get one loop back for awhile. Table tennis
> is a game based on trained reaction and they would not have trained in any
> fashion for this
you must be out of your mind......
i'd be surprised if a given 1500 looper could score a few points against a
world class hardbatter from 60-70 years ago even he has never seen a loop
before. just on the serving/receving part, the poor 1500 looper will be
hardbat'ed into pieces.
but ofcoz, I think any given avg 2500 level loopers today would loop those
old time worldclass hardbatters back to hell or heaven very easily --
especially the first few times
Chico
Berndt; you're a sad sick pathetic Cyberswordsman wanna be gimp
fucker. Marty and his buddies can suck my dogs dick during the week
and MJ's pet llama's arse on the weekend. They sucked shit then they
suck shit now. Marty didn't break fags in half...he WAS and IS a
fag...and not of the bundled stick type...if you get my drift sailor.
Please refer to www.cyberswordsman.com to see how the game is REALLY
played....
why do i even waste my time talking to a no talent low end newbie like
yourself in the first place?...cause i'm a fucking philanthropist,
thats why.
Chico O So Vesence
Berndt Mann
> Berndt; you're a sad sick pathetic Cyberswordsman wanna be gimp
> fucker. Marty and his buddies can suck my dogs dick during the week
> and MJ's pet llama's arse on the weekend. They sucked shit then they
> suck shit now. Marty didn't break fags in half...he WAS and IS a
> fag...and not of the bundled stick type...if you get my drift sailor.
> Please refer to www.cyberswordsman.com to see how the game is REALLY
> played....
>
> why do i even waste my time talking to a no talent low end newbie like
> yourself in the first place?...cause i'm a fucking philanthropist,
> thats why.
>
> Chico O So Vesence
>
> www.cyberswordsman.com
That can't be no combat man--he's lookin' fer a fight.
Willie & Joe
Or some poor wee wee blighter tryin' to woof like a fighter. That
can't be no money player--that there coof is nothin' but woof. Any
scrub can talk a great game when the bankroll's not concerned.
Berndt Mann
da Kraz
(My new news posting plug-in for Outlook converts HTML to text, but apparently
fails to break sentences at 72 char. Or do you need a better news reader?)
But that doesn't invalidate the point, Hardly anybody reads your stuff.
If you put your words where they can be seen on the first screen, maybe
a valid point you might occasionally make would be read by other than
Larry Hodges.
nntp://newsgroups.bellsouth.net/rec.sport.table-tennis/<3b1bb7b6.04032...@posting.google.com>
"da Kraz" <nospamd...@nospambellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<OZj7c.59860$xL3....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...
> This is not a tirade against nuisance posters. I merely wish those who do post consider using these two common posting standards for your follow-ups.
>
> 1. If you feel you must include the entire previous thread of postings on the topic, write your message at the front of your post so that those of us that have been following the topic can skip all the previous junk and get right to the meat of your posting.
>
> 2. I you want to reply point-by-point, delete everything but the sentence(s) you want to respond to. Believe me, the thread is much easier to follow that way, and we can get to the meat of what you wish to say without distraction.
>
> By following these two common considerations for e-mail and news posting you will improve the newsgroup and many more readers will spend the time to look at your postings.
>
> Dave (da Kraz) Krasnow
And your style of posting wherebye readers have to scroll horizontaly
is something to be emulated?
Chico Don't Think So
[rec.sport.table-tennis]
MFBaltaxe
>you must be out of your mind......
>
I think it would be closer, but thats just my opinion