Will Shortz and the Ping-Pong Prodigy (New Yorker)

http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/will-shortz-and-the-ping-pong-prodigy

On Rich DeWitt, Westchester TTC, "Top Spin," nerds, etc.

Oh, and Kai Zhang too.

so entertaining; some dream about it; he just does it.

jrscatman wrote: Nice article. Found this quote interesting:  "“Isn’t that amazing?” Shortz said. “He’d never even picked up a paddle and, just from his build and the way he walks, the coach knew he had potential.”" It would be interesting to know how many kids this coach has selected using this method and how many of them turned out as good as Kai?

I am sure that regardless of the method, you need to start with 100 6-year olds to produce 10 ten-year olds which will still be competitive enough to continue at provincial level, and then in a few more years you will end up with just one 14-15-yr old... well maybe two if you are lucky.

The whole point of the all-encompassing systems like that is not that you have hundreds and thousands of boys and girls playing all the time and missing school and other necessary childhood things - the point should be to NOT miss that one guy who will turn out to be a future Zhang Jike or Ma Long or Kai Zhang.

Therefore I am all for early and massive selection but I would like to see higher percent of elimination so that the 90% of the ten year-olds could go back to their regular life, learn useful skills, computers and math, arts and languages so they too can become very good at something else, something they will eventually show aptitude for.

While we do not need thousands of professional table tennis players per every million of populace, we do need (sometimes desperately) hundreds of competent (at least competent) teachers, builders, doctors, programmers, clerks, small businessmen, inventors, drivers etc etc etc.

It will not hurt anyone if these teachers, builders and programmers will also enjoy table tennis or soccer or chess - sometimes even at competitive level - but forcing them to lose their chance at decent education and level in favor of highly elusive Olympic dream (which will not happen for all of them save one in ten million) is very unhealthy.

To summarize - sport for health and fun is GREAT (and good for you), professional sport (especially turned into a medal-generating, state-prestige-obsessed machine) is mostly BAD.

Well put, JImT.

rigged final... 

jrscatman wrote: Nice article. Found this quote interesting:  "“Isn’t that amazing?” Shortz said. “He’d never even picked up a paddle and, just from his build and the way he walks, the coach knew he had potential.”" It would be interesting to know how many kids this coach has selected using this method and how many of them turned out as good as Kai?

^^^That s interesting.  The entry form says no prize money will be awarded for splits.  I guess as long as the match is played, the TD doesn t care.


Edited by GMan4911 - 11/07/2015 at 11:15am

I read in Tennis (Lawn) - in exhibition matches players used to agree on you take the first set, I ll take the second and we will play for the third set. Essentially, the players were only playing 1 set competitively. They considered it a win-win for the fans and players. Fans get 3 sets, players only need to work 1 - players considered this a good thing. Not sure if the practice still goes on, but it did in the 70 s and 80 s. 

NextLevel wrote: They don t play 5 matches or more in one day to win the tournament at ITTF competitions.  It just comes with the territory of the single day tournaments.

Exactly, you get more money when you win the final. I m guessing it is illegal with usatt as well, although I m not sure on their stance.

Edited by Tk5 - 11/08/2015 at 2:00pm

Did the korean players go talk about it to the New Yorker? You seem to be perfectly fine with splitting finals even though it is against the rules of the tournament.

Splitting a finals is against the rules of the tournament and personally behavior I don t condone. I was pointing out what stuck out to me most was the final paragraph of the article. It was not a complaint. I m not arguing the money should be returned. I m just pointing out that it is interesting that this was revealed in a New Yorker article.

Edited by Tk5 - 11/08/2015 at 9:46pm