home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
Path: bloom-beacon.mit.edu!hookup!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!olivea!news.bu.edu!ttennis From: ttennis@bu.edu (Table Tennis) Newsgroups: rec.sport.table-tennis,rec.answers,news.answers Subject: rec.sport.table-tennis FAQ: game-misc [Part 3/8] Followup-To: rec.sport.table-tennis Date: 8 Mar 1994 02:29:40 GMT Organization: Boston University Table Tennis Assn, USTTA Affiliate 43-90 Lines: 840 Approved: news-answers-request@MIT.Edu Distribution: world Message-ID: <2lgnuk$qq3@news.bu.edu> Reply-To: ttennis@bu.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: acs4.bu.edu Summary: This posting contains a list of Frequently Asked Questions (and their answers) about Table Tennis ("Ping Pong"). It should be read by anyone who wishes to post to the rec.sport.table-tennis newsgroup. Keywords: FAQ3 Table Tennis X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0] Xref: bloom-beacon.mit.edu rec.sport.table-tennis:2012 rec.answers:4379 news.answers:16148 Archive-name: table-tennis/3_game-misc Version: 3.3 rec.sport.table-tennis answers to Frequently Asked Questions and other news, posted monthly, now in mail folder digest format. New items preceded with +: Table of Contents: ================== 3.1. How long is a 11 pt game? 3.1.1 table "Probability of winning match" 3.2. What are Handicap Events? 3.2.1 How does USTTA Rating system works? 3.2.2 What is the probablility of winning? 3.2.3 Handicap Charts 3.3. Canadian TTA to USTTA rating conversion chart 3.4. Does it matter who serves first? 3.5. What is Speedglue? 3.5.1 First Press Release Statement on Speedglue Ban 3.5.2 What speedglue are ITTF-approved? 3.5.3 ITTF Ban 3.5.4 Fight the Glue Ban: ITTF vs TRUE + 3.6. ITTF/ETTU RANK list [93DEC] (use ISO8859-1 Latin font) + 3.6.1 MEN RANK + 3.6.2 WOMEN RANK Send comments, suggestions, contributions, revisions and criticisms regarding this FAQ list via e-mail to: ttennis@bu.edu From marcus@djmarcus.read.tasc.com Wed Feb 10 10:39:01 1993 Subject: 3.1 HOW LONG IS AN 11 POINT GAME? =========================================== Eleven points, of course. A more precise question: Is a 4 out of 7 match of 11 point games the same as a 2 out of 3 match of 21 point games? Why do we care? Over the last few years many tournaments both in the US and in other countries have experimented with 11 point games to see if they make the matches more exciting. Why don't you try such an event at your next tournament? The results can still count for rating points (check with the rating chairman for the current policy). How do we measure the length of a match other than simply counting the total points? The key is to realize that the length of a match is reflected in the probability that the better player will lose. The longer the match, the smaller the probability of an upset. Using standard modeling assumptions (probability of winning a point is independent of the score) we may relate the probability of winning a point to the probability of winning a match under various formats. For simplicity, we will assume the probability of winning a point does not depend on who serves. (It is possible to take into account the dependence on who is serving, but the conclusions remain the same.) The table gives the probabilities of winning a match under various formats. Each row of the table corresponds to a different format. For example, the first row is for one game to 11 points. The "Games" column gives the number of games you need to win the match, so "2" means a 2 out of 3 match. The last row, labeled "2 sets" is for the tennis format: Each game is to 4 points with deuce at 3, each set is to 6 games with deuce at 5, and the match is 2 out of 3 sets. I've used the old tennis format: no tie-breakers. Note that I've also included a format of one game to 51. This is a popular format for handicap matches. Each column gives the probability of winning the match for a different probability of winning a point. Note that the first column is the same for all formats because it corresponds to a probability of winning a point of 0.5. If the two players are evenly matched and the format is fair (and all these formats are), then the probability of winning the match is 0.5 regardless of the length. The larger the numbers in a given row, the longer the match. The rows are in order with the shortest format at the top and the longest format at the bottom. So what can we conclude? A normal 2 out of 3 match is half way between the 11 point game formats of 3 out of 5 and 4 out of 7. It is slightly closer to the 4 out of 7 format. A normal 3 out of 5 match is between the 11 point formats of 5 out of 9 and 6 out of 11, but is closer to the 5 out of 9. The 51 point game is almost the same as a normal 2 out of 3. And finally, the tennis format of 2 out of 3 sets is longer than all the other formats. From marcus@djmarcus.read.tasc.com Wed Feb 10 10:39:01 1993 Subject: 3.1.1 table PROBABILITY OF WINNING MATCH ------------------------------------------------- Format | Probability of Winning Point Points Games | 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.60 ------------------------------------------------- 11 1 | 0.50 0.58 0.65 0.72 0.78 0.84 21 1 | 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.79 0.86 0.91 11 2 | 0.50 0.61 0.72 0.81 0.88 0.93 11 3 | 0.50 0.64 0.77 0.86 0.93 0.97 21 2 | 0.50 0.65 0.79 0.88 0.94 0.98 51 1 | 0.50 0.66 0.79 0.89 0.95 0.98 11 4 | 0.50 0.66 0.80 0.90 0.96 0.98 11 5 | 0.50 0.68 0.83 0.92 0.97 0.99 21 3 | 0.50 0.69 0.84 0.93 0.98 0.99 11 6 | 0.50 0.70 0.85 0.94 0.98 1.00 2 sets | 0.50 0.71 0.87 0.95 0.99 1.00 ------------------------------------------------- From marcus@djmarcus.read.tasc.com Wed Feb 10 10:38:58 1993 Subject: 3.2 WHAT ARE HANDICAP EVENTS? ======================================= Handicap events are a lot of fun. You get to play people you wouldn't ordinarily play and everyone has to play their best in every match. However, the key is a good handicap chart. Simple formulas such as four (or two) handicap points per hundred rating points (in a game to 21) are a start, but we should be able to do better. We will construct new handicap charts for both 21 point games and 51 point games. It is traditional for a handicap match to consist of one game to 51. The reason is that a large handicap in a 21 point game can force the players to drastically change their styles: the stronger player plays too conservatively since the weaker player only needs to win a few "lucky" points. Playing 2 out of 3 doesn't change this, but one game to 51 gives more room to maneuver. How do we construct a handicap chart? There are three steps: 1. We need some data from which we can estimate the probability that one player will defeat another player in a nonhandicap match. 2. Then we relate the probability of winning a nonhandicap match to the probability of winning each point. 3. Finally we calculate how many handicap points will make the handicap match fair. From marcus@djmarcus.read.tasc.com Wed Feb 10 10:38:58 1993 Subject: 3.2.1 HOW DOES USTTA RATING SYSTEM WORKS? -------------------------------------------------- Before discussing the data, let's discuss how the rating system works. This will make it easier to understand the data. The tournament director of each tournament sends all the results for the tournament to the USTTA rating chairman Dan Simon. Dan processes the tournaments in the order they were played. After processing, he sends a report back to the tournament director that gives the new rating for each player who played in the tournament. So, you may get your new rating from the tournament director several weeks after the tournament. Here is the rating chart which gives the number of rating points that the winner of each match wins and the loser loses. --------------------------------------- Rating | Higher rated | Lower rated difference | player wins | player wins --------------------------------------- 0- 12 | 8 | 8 13- 37 | 7 | 10 38- 62 | 6 | 13 63- 87 | 5 | 16 88-112 | 4 | 20 113-137 | 3 | 25 138-162 | 2 | 30 163-187 | 2 | 35 188-212 | 1 | 40 213-237 | 1 | 45 238- | 0 | 50 --------------------------------------- However, the calculation of the ratings involves more than just this chart. The first problem is unrated players. Dan looks at the results of each unrated player (including the number of points the player scored). Using this information, he assigns a rating to each unrated player. From now on he treats unrated players just like rated players using the newly assigned rating. So, you do win and lose points when you play an unrated player. To finish calculating the post-tournament ratings, Dan makes two passes through the results. The first pass is a screening pass to identify players whose ratings should be adjusted. Dan uses the rating chart to calculate how many points each player would win for the tournament. Any player who would win at least fifty rating points has his rating adjusted up. This means that Dan replaces his pre-tournament rating with a new adjusted rating which is used as his rating for the second pass. In the second pass, Dan uses the rating chart again to calculate the post-tournament rating for each player. So, from the point of view of the rating system, there are actually three ratings for every player in a tournament. The first rating is the pre-tournament rating which is the rating the player has going into the tournament after all earlier tournaments have been processed. This is not necessarily the same as the rating used at the tournament since Dan processes the tournaments in the order they were played. The second rating is the adjusted pre-tournament rating. This is different from the pre-tournament rating for two classes of players: 1. unrated players, 2. players who have their ratings adjusted. No one has a zero adjusted rating, since all the unrated players are given a rating. If the player was rated and he is not being adjusted, then his adjusted rating is the same as his pre-tournament rating. The third rating is the post-tournament rating. To summarize: the pre-tournament rating is the rating before the tournament is processed. The adjusted rating is the rating after unrated players are given ratings and after the first screening pass. The post-tournament rating is the player's new rating that will be published in the next issue of TT Today. DATA Dan graciously sent me the results from eight tournaments played in April and May 1989. Here are some statistics of the number of players and matches in those eight tournaments. --------------------------------------------------------- Category | Players | Matches |------------------------------------ | Number Per cent | Number Per cent | of total | of total --------------------------------------------------------- all | 459 100.0 | 1510 100.0 unrated | 49 10.7 | 225 14.9 adjusted | 49 10.7 | 417 27.6 unrated or adjusted | 98 21.4 | 609 40.3 --------------------------------------------------------- The row labeled "all" is all the players and all the matches. The row labeled "unrated" is those players who were unrated going into the tournament and those matches in which either player was unrated. The row labeled "adjusted" is those players who had their ratings adjusted and those matches in which either player was adjusted. The row labeled "unrated or adjusted" is those players who were either unrated or had their ratings adjusted and those matches in which either player was unrated or adjusted. In case you were wondering, the number of "unrated" matches plus the number of "adjusted" matches doesn't equal the number of "unrated or adjusted" matches because there were 33 matches in which an unrated player played an adjusted player. It is interesting that 40.3% of the matches involve unrated or adjusted players. This and the fact that you don't know the pre-tournament ratings is why you can't exactly calculate your own post-tournament rating. Which set of ratings should we use to construct a handicap chart? Well, in principle we should use the pre-tournament ratings since these ratings are closest to the ratings that are actually used at the tournaments. Rather than make a decision, we'll construct charts using each of the three sets of ratings. From marcus@djmarcus.read.tasc.com Wed Feb 10 10:38:58 1993 Subject: 3.2.2 WHAT'S THE PROBABILITY OF WINNING? ------------------------------------------------- We want to extract from the data the probability of winning a match as a function of the difference in ratings of the two players. Let's look at the distribution of the matches by rating. ------------------------------------------------------------- Rating | Pre | Adjusted | Post difference |------------------------------------------------- | Matches Upsets | Matches Upsets | Matches Upsets ------------------------------------------------------------- 0- 299 | 973 272 | 1126 260 | 1123 212 300- 599 | 229 15 | 275 4 | 283 1 600- 899 | 69 1 | 86 0 | 80 0 900-1199 | 11 0 | 17 0 | 18 0 1200-3000 | 3 0 | 6 0 | 6 0 ------------------------------------------------------------- The reason there are fewer total matches in the "Pre" column is that we have excluded those matches that involve an unrated player. For our purposes, the main thing to notice is how few matches there are with large rating differences and how few of them are upsets. Hence any estimate we calculate for the probability of winning when there are large rating differences will be of questionable accuracy. Of course we are using only 8 tournaments; there are over 200 tournaments per year. TECHNICAL STUFF To proceed we need a model for the probability of winning a nonhandicap match as a function of the rating difference. This gets technical for awhile. We will use a logistic model. Let D be the rating difference, P be the probability of winning a nonhandicap 2 out of 3 match, and b be the model parameter. The form of the logistic model is P( D ) = exp( bD ) / ( 1 + exp( bD ) ) We fit the model to each of the three sets of data by maximum likelihood. Here is the result. ------------------ Ratings | b ---------|-------- Pre | 0.00795 Adjusted | 0.01115 Post | 0.01517 ------------------ Each model lets us calculate the probability of winning a nonhandicap 2 out of 3 match for any difference in rating. Given standard assumptions (probability of winning a point is independent of the score and of who is serving) a probability of winning a nonhandicap 2 out of 3 match corresponds to a probability of winning a point. This suggests how to calculate a handicap chart. Pick one of the three models. Pick a rating difference. Convert this to the probability of winning a nonhandicap 2 out of 3 match using the model. Convert this to the probability of winning a point. Now find the handicap such that the probability of winning a handicap match is 0.5 (i.e., the handicap match is fair to both players). By the way, my 386 computer (no coprocessor) needed about an hour to compute the charts. From marcus@djmarcus.read.tasc.com Wed Feb 10 10:38:58 1993 Subject: 3.2.3 HANDICAP CHARTS ------------------------------ Here are the handicap charts calculated from the above data. First are the charts for a 51 point game. Second are the charts for a 21 point game. Each table contains three handicap charts labeled "Pre", "Adjusted", and "Post" corresponding to the three sets of ratings that we have. Since we had so little data for rating differences of more than 300 points, I wouldn't be surprised if the charts are not good for large handicaps. I've used these handicap charts in tournaments and I recommend you use the Post chart. -------------------------------------------- Handicap | Rating Difference |---------------------------------- | Pre | Adjusted | Post -------------------------------------------- 0 | 0- 9 | 0- 6 | 0- 5 1 | 10- 29 | 7- 21 | 6- 15 2 | 30- 49 | 22- 35 | 16- 26 3 | 50- 70 | 36- 50 | 27- 37 4 | 71- 92 | 51- 65 | 38- 48 5 | 93- 114 | 66- 81 | 49- 60 6 | 115- 137 | 82- 98 | 61- 72 7 | 138- 161 | 99- 115 | 73- 84 8 | 162- 186 | 116- 133 | 85- 97 9 | 187- 212 | 134- 151 | 98- 111 10 | 213- 240 | 152- 171 | 112- 126 11 | 241- 269 | 172- 192 | 127- 141 12 | 270- 300 | 193- 214 | 142- 157 13 | 301- 333 | 215- 237 | 158- 174 14 | 334- 368 | 238- 262 | 175- 193 15 | 369- 405 | 263- 289 | 194- 212 16 | 406- 445 | 290- 317 | 213- 233 17 | 446- 488 | 318- 348 | 234- 256 18 | 489- 534 | 349- 381 | 257- 280 19 | 535- 583 | 382- 416 | 281- 305 20 | 584- 636 | 417- 454 | 306- 333 21 | 637- 694 | 455- 495 | 334- 363 22 | 695- 756 | 496- 539 | 364- 396 23 | 757- 823 | 540- 586 | 397- 431 24 | 824- 895 | 587- 638 | 432- 469 25 | 896- 973 | 639- 694 | 470- 510 26 | 974-1058 | 695- 755 | 511- 555 27 | 1059-1150 | 756- 820 | 556- 603 28 | 1151-1251 | 821- 892 | 604- 655 29 | 1252-1360 | 893- 969 | 656- 712 30 | 1361-1478 | 970-1054 | 713- 775 31 | 1479-1608 | 1055-1147 | 776- 843 32 | 1609-1750 | 1148-1248 | 844- 917 33 | 1751-1906 | 1249-1359 | 918- 999 34 | 1907-2077 | 1360-1481 | 1000-1089 35 | 2078-2267 | 1482-1616 | 1090-1188 36 | 2268-2477 | 1617-1766 | 1189-1298 37 | 2478-2711 | 1767-1933 | 1299-1421 38 | 2712-2973 | 1934-2120 | 1422-1559 39 | 2974-3000 | 2121-2331 | 1560-1713 40 | | 2332-2570 | 1714-1889 41 | | 2571-2844 | 1890-2091 42 | | 2845-3000 | 2092-2324 43 | | | 2325-2598 44 | | | 2599-3000 -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Handicap | Rating Difference |---------------------------------- | Pre | Adjusted | Post -------------------------------------------- 0 | 0- 23 | 0- 17 | 0- 12 1 | 24- 73 | 18- 52 | 13- 38 2 | 74- 127 | 53- 90 | 39- 66 3 | 128- 185 | 91- 132 | 67- 97 4 | 186- 251 | 133- 179 | 98- 131 5 | 252- 327 | 180- 233 | 132- 171 6 | 328- 414 | 234- 295 | 172- 217 7 | 415- 518 | 296- 369 | 218- 271 8 | 519- 641 | 370- 457 | 272- 336 9 | 642- 790 | 458- 563 | 337- 414 10 | 791- 970 | 564- 691 | 415- 508 11 | 971-1190 | 692- 848 | 509- 623 12 | 1191-1460 | 849-1041 | 624- 765 13 | 1461-1797 | 1042-1281 | 766- 942 14 | 1798-2223 | 1282-1585 | 943-1165 15 | 2224-2774 | 1586-1978 | 1166-1454 16 | 2775-3000 | 1979-2504 | 1455-1840 17 | | 2505-3000 | 1841-2383 18 | | | 2384-3000 -------------------------------------------- From ttennis@bu.edu Fri Jan 21 00:39:04 1994 Subject: 3.3 CANADIAN TTA to USTTA RATING CONVERSION CHART ========================================================== 0000-0399 +670 1800-1899 +090 2350-2399 -050 0400-0699 +545 1900-1999 +055 2400-2449 -060 0700-0899 +460 2000-2049 +025 2450-2499 -065 0900-1099 +390 2050-2099 +010 2500-2549 -075 1100-1299 +315 2100-2149 -005 2550-2599 -085 1300-1499 +245 2150-2199 -015 2600-2649 -095 1500-1599 +195 2200-2249 -020 2650-2699 -100 1600-1699 +160 2250-2299 -030 2700-2749 -110 1700-1799 +125 2300-2349 -040 2750-2799 -120 From marcus@djmarcus.read.tasc.com Wed Feb 10 10:39:02 1993 Subject: 3.4 DOES IT MATTER WHO SERVES FIRST? ============================================= (See p31 of Jan/Feb 91 TTTopics) At the start of every match, assuming you win the coin flip (or the roll of the ball), you must decide if you want to serve or to receive. Does it matter which you choose? Now, I don't mean is there a psychological advantage. To see what I mean consider chess. There is a significant advantage to having white in chess. Even if you prefer defense to offense, you should take white. Or consider a game of volleyball. In volleyball your team only scores points when it is serving. It is intuitively clear that, given a choice, you should serve first. So what about table tennis? Is there an actual advantage to serving first? Before reading further, try to answer this question. Let's be explicit about our modeling assumptions. Assume that the probability of winning a point only depends on which player is serving, and in particular is independent of the score. First note that if the game goes deuce, then it doesn't matter who served first since no matter who wins, each player will have served the same number of times. What if the game doesn't go deuce? Consider the following modification of the rules: Rather than stopping when one player reaches 21, keep playing until 40 points have been played. If you win the game under the modified rules, then you must win at least 21 of the 40 points and hence would have won the game under the standard rules. Similarly if you lose under the modified rules, you also would have lost under the standard rules. But, under the modified rules, both players serve 20 times and so it doesn't matter which one served first. So the answer to our question is: No, it doesn't matter who serves first. How about handicap matches? Traditionally a handicap match is played as one game to 51. In order to analyze this, modify the rules so we'll play a total of 100 points (unless we go deuce). Serve changes when the sum of the scores is a multiple of 5, just as in non-handicap games. Let A be the player who serves first and let B be the player who serves second. Suppose the handicap is 1 point. Player A serves 4 points and then B serves 5 points, and the rest of the game continues normally with each player serving 5 points at a time. Hence A will serve a total of 49 points and B will serve a total of 50. Therefore you should choose to serve second (unless you are weird and are more likely to win a point when your opponent serves). Now let's consider a handicap of 5. Then player A will serve 50 points and B will serve 45. Therefore you should serve first. If the handicap is 10, then both players will serve 45 and it doesn't matter who serves first. Let's summarize what you should do for handicap games. Only the last digit matters (so you want to do the same thing for a handicap of 17 as for a handicap of 7). If the last digit of the handicap is 0, then it doesn't matter who serves first. If the last digit of the handicap is 1, 2, 3, or 4, then you want to serve second. If the last digit of the handicap is 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, then you want to serve first. We'll leave doubles for a future article or you might try it as a (difficult) homework problem. It might also be interesting to analyze a 2 out of 3 handicap match where each game is to 21. Perhaps a few words about psychological advantage is in order. If there is no real advantage and the players know this, then there shouldn't be any psychological advantage. However, if you know there is no real advantage, but your opponent doesn't, then perhaps you can get a psychological advantage by letting him serve first. From Alexander.J.Chien@med.umich.edu Tue Feb 23 11:50:24 1993 Subject: 3.5. What is Speedglue ? ================================= Speedglue, the glue used in the practice of regluing your rubbers, has been used since the late 70's. I believe that the practice was attributed to Klampar or Surbek. What the players do before each practice session or match is to peel off the rubber sheet from the wood blade, put fresh glue on both the blade and rubber sheets, and replace the rubbers back onto the wood. The secret is a solvent that is found in the glue - most commonly - trichloroethylene. The trichloroethene can penetrate into the molecular network of the sponge effectively 'swelling' up the sponge (A crude analogy may be taking a sponge that the hard when dry and becomes soft wneh wet). The rubber sheet, when 'swelled' by tri-chloroethylene becomes much softer. This will do a few things to your bat. The ball can penetrate further into the sponge of your rubber, in effect, making more contact with the blade. Thus, the more contact the ball has with the blade, the faster your shot will be. Also, since you can sink the ball further into the spong you can generate more spin. The softer sponge also markedly increases the dwell time that the ball stays on your racket - so it can also increase your control. Regluing is more effective with rubber sheets that have a soft sponge. The softer sponges have a less heavily cross-linked molecular network than hard sponges that allow the solvents to penetrate easier and swell/expand the sponge easier. Thus, there will be more of a regluing effect if you use a soft sponged rubber. However, a soft sponge will lose it's elastisity faster than a hard sponge. Some disadvantages come with regluing. The first disadvantage is the decrease in elasticity of the sponge. When trichloroethylene penetrates the sponge and breaks apart molecular cross-links, the sponge becomes softer. When the solvent proceeds to evaporate from the sponge, the cross-links are not in the same condition as they were before the solvent was applied, and thus, a decrease in the elasticity/ resilience of the sponge. After about 20 regluings, there can be a significant change from the original character of the rubber. The second disadvantage is the constant change is racket angle when playing. The effect of the solvent gradually decreases over time, and constant modifications in your racket angle must be done. Also, regluing will add weight to your bat each time you reglue because of the extra glue applied. Finally, the solvents used are usually very volatile, toxic, and could be cancerous. From ttennis@bu.edu Fri Jan 21 00:39:04 1994 Subject: 3.5.1 First PRESS RELEASE STATEMENT on SPEEDGLUE BAN ------------------------------------------------------------- The ITTF Executive Board, at its meeting at Manchester on 14th of December 1992, received reports from scientific experts in toxicology and chemistry on the harmful effects of the Aromatic and Chlorinated solvents used in some types of rubber adhesives. On the basis of these reports it was agreed unanimously to recommend the Executive Commitee to take urgent action to prevent the use of such adhesives by Table Tennis Players. The Executive Commitee accepted this recommendation and decided: 1. To impose an immediate ban in events directly under ITTF control, such as the Global Youth Championships in Tokyo in January 1993 and the World Championships in Gothnburg in May 1993; and 2. To ask Continental and National Federations and organisers of international competitions to enforce a similar ban in events under their control from 1st January 1 Any person, e.g. player, coach, official, responsible for contravening this rule will be liable to immediate disqualification and suspension for at least 3 months. Where it is necessary for rubbers to be replaced during a competition it must be done in a designated place, under the supervision of an official and using an adhesive supplied by the organiser. Manufacturers and suppliers are asked to discontinue marketing of adhesive containing Aromatic and Chlorinated solvents, and to ensure that their products are clearly marked with the ingredients. Players and coaches are asked to cooperate in ensuring that the ban is observed. Manchester, December 15th, 1992. Signed Ichiro Ogimura, President. From hoens@gmd.de Tue Apr 30 10:38:13 1993 Subject: 3.5.2 WHAT SPEEDGLUES are ITTF-APPROVED? ------------------------------------------------- this is the list of ittf-approved speed-glues, list nr 3, dated 17.march93 Andro Fast, Butterfly Fair Chack, Butterfly Pro Chack, Changi Power Drive, Contra Speed, Donic Appelgren Puro, Hanno Fresh, Joola Green, Juic Ecolo Effect, Nittaku Banda Waldner Clean, Nittaku Rubber Dine, Posno Spin Speed, Schildkroet TT Glue, Schoeler & Micke Belagkleber, Skitt Coppa Light, Stiga Victory Tibhar, Rapid Clean, TSP Norika Clean, Victoria Belagkleber From LEEEDWARDS@delphi.com Tue Nov 16 22:50:05 1993 Subject: 3.5.3 FIGHT THE GLUE BAN: ITTF vs TRUE =============================================== THE OSAKA VICE INCIDENT AND THE GLUE BAN THE ITTF VERSION AND THE TRUTH THE ITTF VERSION On December 4 the police raided a table tennis shop in Osaka, Japan, and confiscated their stock of adhesives; the resulting large headlines in the press were not flattering to the sport. Good timing! The Executive Board had to formulate a recommendation, with no time for further inquiry or considered deliberation. Yet with publicity like that the ITTF could not be seen to take no action. The manufacturers had done nothing to remove the problem, so the ITTF had to. Failure to act could result in very costly legal liability. The ITTF E.C. had to take immediate action after the incident in Japan -- otherwise the amount of negative publicity would have been extremely damaging to the sport, and the ITTF could even have been subject to litigation. The ITTF's action last December was indeed a political response to the police raid in Osaka, albeit a rather pragmatic one. For the fact is that headlines are headlines, and a struggling sport like ours cannot afford bad ones. THE TRUTH The police raid in Osaka was only reported in local newspapers. There was no report of it in newspapers in Tokyo. It was too small an incident to be reported nationwide. I would be very much surprised if it was reported outside Japan. It was too small even to be handled nationwide. The start of the police raid was a phone call from parents of a junior table tennis player. She went to a table tennis shop in Osaka and asked for that glue (a particular Japanese brand containing the solvent toluene). An employee explained to her that if she was to used for glue sniffing, she should do it secretly. This was found out by her parents, who called the police, and there was a raid. The police confiscated the glue from the store. The thing was that the employee sold it knowing it would be used for a purpose other than table tennis. THE MANUFACTURERS AND THE GLUE BAN THE ITTF VERSION AND THE TRUTH THE ITTF VERSION President Ogimura met in December with more than ten manufacturers and reported on the problems associated with the ban on certain types of glue. The ITTF does expect all manufacturers to adapt themselves to the new situation. a. Announcement of harmless rubber adhesive for the time being during the transition period. b. Announcement of systems which will not require rubber adhesive at all when players put rubber on their rackets. For example: 1. Rubber sheet which is coated with pressure sensitive adhesive, and coated by cover paper. 2. A film which is coated by pressure sensitive adhesive on both sides with cover papers for the use of those rubbers without adhesive prefixed. Too much spin on the ball encourages short rallies. Even without speed glues, 10,000 rotations per minute have been reported. Mistakes by misjudging spin cannot be understood, appreciated or cheered by spectators inside the arena and on TV. Out of this meeting the Japanese manufacturers agreed to cooperate with the ITTF. THE TRUTH The Manufacturers Panel has to correct the following remark given at Mr. Ogimura's Press Conference on May 14th, 1993 "No manufacturers were against the decision." The Manufacturers Panel told the ITTF in the Manufacturers Meeting: 1. We fully agree with ban of toxic glues as done by the end of last year and fully assist the efforts of ITTF to find a way to take out all harmful agents. 2. We feel that the way the glue problem has been handled in this Championship (Gothenburg) is good, at least up to a future solution to be acceptable for all (ITTF, Players, Manufacturers). 3. We think that the question of ban glueing is no longer only a problem of health, but of the view of developing our sport (Mr. Ogimura likes to reduce speed and spin, which we do not think is necessary). Besides the discussion about glueing we have demanded several times during this meeting (to Mr. Ogimura and the Equipment Committee) not to change any rule concerning material without doing serious tests together with players and manufacturers during a 2-years-period in advance. Gothenburg, May 19th, 1993 On behalf of the Manufacturers Panel Butterfly Donic Joola Nittaku From jaeger@is.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de Tue Jan 18 17:37:51 1994 Subject: 3.6 ITTF, ETTU, Computer Rank List, DECEMBER 1993 =========================================================== From jaeger@is.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de Tue Jan 18 17:37:51 1994 Subject: 3.6.1 MEN ------------------------ world europe points name new old 1 1 1 2043 Jan-Ove WALDNER SWE 2 3 2 1987 Jean-Michel SAIVE BEL 3 2 3 1983 Jean-Philippe GATIEN FRA 4 4 1965 WANG Tao CHN 5 5 1964 MA Wenge CHN 6 6 1951 KIM Taek Soo KOR 7 10 4 1929 Andrzej GRUBBA POL 8 7 5 1922 Peter KARLSSON SWE 9 9 1907 LI Gun Sang PRK 10 8 6 1896 J÷rg ROSSKOPF GER 11 10 7 1888 J÷rgen PERSSON SWE 12 12 8 1885 Zoran PRIMORAC CRO 13 14 9 1882 CHEN Xinhua ENG 14 13 1853 Johnny HUANG CAN 15 15 1852 YOO Nam Kyu KOR 16 16 1849 KIM Song Hui PRK 17 17 1829 WANG Yonggang CHN 18 19 1810 LU Lin CHN 19 21 1802 LIU Guoliang CHN 20 17 10 1794 Erik LINDH SWE 21 20 11 1790 DING Yi AUT 22 22 1768 YU Shentong CHN 23 25 1750 Hiroshi SHIBUTANI JPN 24 26 1749 XIE Chaojie CHN 25 23 12 1737 Mikael APPELGREN SWE 26 23 13 1726 Steffen FETZNER GER 27 27 14 1714 Carl PREAN ENG 28 32 15 1708 Petr KORBEL CZE 29 28 1702 Kiyoshi SAITO JPN 30 29 1686 KIM Guk Chol PRK 31 31 1683 WANG Hao CHN 32 33 16 1677 YANG Jianhua LUX 33 34 17 1676 Paul HALDAN NED 34 36 1662 LI Yi CHN 35 44 18 1659 Vladmir SAMSONOV BLR 36 37 1655 LEE Chul Seung KOR 37 50 19 1647 Thierry CABRERA BEL 38 39 1634 KANG Hee Chan KOR 39 40 1633 XIONG Ke CHN 40 35 20 1631 Georg-Zsolt B÷hm GER 41 42 1628 CHENG Yinghua USA 41 38 21 1628 Dimitri MAZUNOV RUS 41 42 21 1628 Ilija LUPULESKU YUG 44 40 23 1626 Peter FRANTZ GER 45 46 1618 Koji MATSUSHITA JPN 46 47 1614 ZHANG Lei CHN 46 45 24 1614 Calin CREANGA GRE 48 47 1613 Yuji MATSUSHITA JPN 49 49 1612 LO Chuen Tsung HKG 50 52 1599 DONG Lun CHN 51 54 1591 CHOI Gyong Sop PRK 52 53 25 1585 Alan COOKE ENG 53 55 26 1583 Igor SOLOPOV EST 54 51 27 1577 Andrei MAZUNOV RUS 55 56 1573 WU Wen-Chila TPE 56 58 28 1558 Patrick CHILA FRA 57 57 1552 CHAN Kong Wah HKG 58 60 1544 KIM Myong Jun PRK 59 59 29 1543 Damien ELOI FRA 60 61 30 1538 Tomas JANCI SVK 61 64 31 1533 Andras PODPINKA BEL 62 63 32 1528 Zoran KALINIC YUG 63 62 33 1526 Philippe SAIVE BEL 64 69 34 1520 Trinko KEEN NED 65 67 1513 Kiyonobu IWASAKI JPN 66 68 1510 Toshio TAZAKI JPN 66 81 1510 LIN Zhigang CHN 68 66 1509 CHOO Kyo Sung KOR 69 74 35 1506 Danny HEISTER NED 70 70 36 1504 Leszek KUCHARSKI POL . . 108 108 62 1371 Richard PRAUSE GER 131 131 76 1284 Oliver ALKE GER 140 - 81 1266 Thorben WOSIK GER 143 149 83 1258 Christian DREHER GER 183 170 104 1176 Sascha K╓STNER GER 199 190 112 1147 Thomas SCHR╓DER GER 232 - 138 1083 Kay-Andrew GREIL GER From jaeger@is.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de Tue Jan 18 17:37:51 1994 Subject: 3.6.2 WOMEN -------------------------- 1 1 2251 DENG Yaping CHN 2 2 2123 QIAO Hong CHN 3 3 2085 HYUN Jung Hwa KOR 4 4 1996 GAO Jun CHN 5 5 1994 CHEN Zihe CHN 6 6 1992 LI Bun Hui PRK 7 7 1972 CHEN Jing TPE 8 8 1964 Chai Po Wa HKG 9 9 1941 YU Sun Bok PRK 10 10 1927 TANG Weiyi CHN 11 11 1918 JING Jun Hong SIN 12 12 1912 ZHANG Qin CHN 13 13 1908 LIU Wei CHN 14 18 1906 WANG Chen CHN 14 14 1906 GENG Lijuan CAN 16 15 1901 WU Na CHN 17 16 1895 ZHENG Yuan CHN 18 28 1 1889 Csilla BATORFI HUN 19 17 2 1882 Otilia BADESCU ROM 20 19 1879 HONG Soon Hwa KOR 21 19 1872 Chire KOYAMA JPN 22 21 3 1841 Bettine VRIESEKOOP NED 23 22 1840 CHAN Tan Lui HKG 24 23 1834 YING Ronghui CHN 25 25 4 1829 Nicole STRUSE GER 26 24 1826 HONG Cha Ok KOR 27 27 1812 CHENG To HKG 28 29 5 1802 WANG-DRECHOU Xiaoming FRA 29 26 1799 LI Ju CHN 30 30 6 1797 Jie SCH╓PP GER 31 31 1795 Fumiyo YAMASHITA JPN 32 32 1793 Li Mi Suk PRK 33 33 1792 QIAO Yunping CHN 34 34 1778 XU Jing TPE 35 35 1772 YANG Ying CHN 36 36 1765 AN Hui Suk PRK 37 37 1764 Diana HUANG CAN 38 38 7 1749 TU Dai Yong SUI 39 39 1737 WI Sun Bok PRK 40 40 8 1720 Elena TIMINA RUS 41 41 9 1719 Emilia Elena CIOSU ROM 42 42 10 1715 Daniela GERGELCHEVA BUL 43 44 11 1708 Mirjam HOOMAN NED 43 45 11 1708 Fliura ABBATE-BULATOVA ITA 45 43 13 1702 Lisa LOMAS ENG 46 46 14 1694 Marie SVENSSON SWE 47 48 15 1684 Jasna FAZLIC-LUPULESKU YUG 48 47 1668 ZHU Qingni CHN 49 49 16 1664 Olga NEMES GER 49 51 1664 PARK Hae Jung CHN 51 52 17 1660 Asa SVENSSON SWE . 55 57 18 1619 Alessia ARISI ITA 56 55 19 1616 Irina PALINA RUS 56 60 19 1616 Krisztina TOTH HUN 58 59 21 1614 Galina MELNIK RUS 60 53 22 1609 NI Xialian LUX 61 62 23 1580 Pernilla PETTERSON SWE 63 63 24 1567 Polona FRELIH SLO 69 68 25 1526 Alison GORDON ENG . 90 92 39 1451 Christiane PRAEDEL GER 99 99 45 1406 Elke SCHALL GER 102 103 46 1396 Cornella FALTERMAIER GER 137 - 72 1287 Christina FISCHER GER 202 192 118 1140 Nicole DELLE GER 207 - 121 1132 Nina WOLF GER 
