Path: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!usenet.cis.ufl.edu!purdue!news.bu.edu!ttennis
From: ttennis@bu.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: 18 Dec 1995 21:04:59 GMT
Organization: Boston University Table Tennis Assn, USATT Affiliate 43-90
Lines: 861
Approved: news-answers-request@MIT.Edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4b4l1r$t4@news.bu.edu>
Reply-To: ttennis@bu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: acs.bu.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
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 PL2]
Xref: senator-bedfellow.mit.edu rec.sport.table-tennis:7490 rec.answers:17019 news.answers:60284
Archive-name: table-tennis/3_game-misc
Version: 12.0
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 USATT Rating system works?
3.2.2 What is the probablility of winning?
3.2.3 Handicap Charts
3.3. Canadian TTA to USATT 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
3.6.1 MEN RANK [95FEB]
3.6.2 WOMEN RANK [94SEP]
Send comments, suggestions, contributions, revisions and criticisms
regarding this FAQ list via e-mail to:
ttennis@bu.edu
From djmarcus@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 djmarcus@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 djmarcus@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 djmarcus@tasc.com Wed Feb 10 10:38:58 1993
Subject: 3.2.1 HOW DOES USATT 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 USATT 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 djmarcus@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 djmarcus@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 USATT 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 djmarcus@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 paulsenr@gaya.nki.no Wed Dec 06 09:45:52 1995
Subject: 3.6 ITTF, ETTU, World Rank List, Nov 1995
===================================================
I have now posted the latest world ranking on my site, if you want to
take a look at it, you will find it at:
http://gaya.nki.no:80/~paulsenr/fokus/wran1195.htm
From jaeger@is.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de Tue Mar 21 17:10:29 1995
Subject: 3.6.1 MEN (Sep95)
--------------------------------
World Europe
New Old
1 1 1662 1 Jean-Michel SAIVE BEL
2 2 1616 WANG Tao CHN
3 6 1597 2 Jean-Philippe GATIEN FRA
4 7 1587 KIM Taek Soo KOR
5 3 1584 3 Jan-Ove WALDNER SWE
6 7 1562 4 Zoran PRIMORAC CRO
7 4 1545 MA Wenge CHN
8 9 1534 5 Jörg ROSSKOPF GER
9 10 1527 LI Gun Sang PRK
10 4 1525 6 Peter KARLSSON SWE
11 11 1509 7 Andrzej GRUBBA POL
12 13 1508 KONG Linhui CHN
13 12 1503 LIU Gouliang CHN
14 14 1501 8 Jörgen PERSSON SWE
15 15 1493 Johnny HUANG CAN
16 16 1473 KIM Song Hui PRK
17 18 1468 YOO Nam Kyu KOR
18 17 1464 WANG Yonggang CHN
19 18 1463 9 CHEN Xinhua ENG
20 20 1430 LU Lin CHN
21 21 1414 DING Song CHN
22 22 1401 XIE Chaojie CHN
23 23 1376 WANG Hao CHN
24 24 1374 Hiroshi SHIBUTANI JPN
25 24 1365 10 DING Yi AUT
26 26 1360 11 Vladimir SAMSONOV BLR
27 28 1356 12 Erik LINDH SWE
28 34 1349 LIN Zhigang CHN
29 29 1348 Kiyoshi SAITOH JPN
30 46 1347 XIONG Ke CHN
31 27 1346 13 Patrick CHILA FRA
32 30 1342 14 Mikael APPELGREN SWE
33 31 1341 15 Petr KORBEL CZE
34 32 1337 16 Carl PREAN ENG
35 37 1335 CHENG Yinghua USA
36 33 1325 17 Philippe SAIVE BEL
37 35 1323 18 Calin CREANGA GRE
38 42 1317 19 Dimitri MAZUNOV RUS
39 36 1315 ZHANG Lei CHN
40 62 1313 20 Damien ELOI FRA
41 48 1306 21 Thierry CABRERA BEL
42 38 1305 Iljia LUPULESKU USA
43 40 1304 KANG Hee Chan KOR
44 41 1303 22 Steffen FETZNER GER
45 42 1299 LEE Chul Seung KOR
45 42 1299 23 Georg-Zsolt BÖHM GER
47 45 1297 24 Andreas Podpinka BEL
48 38 1295 25 Paul HALDAN NED
49 50 1294 26 Andrei MAZUNOV RUS
50 62 1293 Koji MATSUSHITA JPN
51 47 1292 LO Chuen Tsung HKG
52 49 1278 DONG Lun CHN
53 51 1277 27 Peter FRANZ GER
54 52 1275 CHOI Gyong Sop PRK
55 54 1272 28 Igor SOLOPOV EST
56 57 1260 29 Trinko KEEN NED
57 65 1255 30 Alan COOKE ENG
58 56 1249 31 YANG Min ITA
59 59 1245 CHAN Kong Wah HKG
60 - 1244 IWASAKI Kiyonobu JPN
61 64 1236 KIM Myong Jun PRK
62 63 1234 32 Vasile FLOREA ROM
63 61 1233 33 Christophe LEGOUT FRA
63 60 1233 WU Wen-Chia TPE
65 66 1231 MATSUSHITA Yuji JPN
65 67 1231 34 Matthew SYED ENG
67 - 1224 35 Danny HEISTER NED
68 65 1218 36 Olivier MARMUREK FRA
69 75 1212 37 Thomas VON SCHEELE SWE
69 71 1212 38 Lucjan BLASZCZYK POL
71 69 1211 39 Tomas JANCI SVK
72 72 1208 40 Zoran KALINIC YUG
72 70 1208 CHU Kyo Sung KOR
72 70 1208 WANG Fei CHN
75 74 1207 41 Roland VIMI SVK
. . . .
81 81 1182 46 Richard PRAUSE GER
147 139 1033 82 Oliver ALKE GER
150 144 1031 84 Christian DREHER GER
151 142 1030 85 Torben WOSIK GER
218 190 907 123 Sascha KÖSTNER GER
222 215 898 127 Thomas SCHRÖDER GER
238 246 880 136 Kay-Andrew GREIL GER
306 - 806 181 Thomas KEINATH GER
(02/1995)
From jaeger@is.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de Tue Feb 18 17:37:51 1994
Subject: 3.6.2 WOMEN (Sep94)
----------------------------------
1 1 2258 DENG Yaping CHN
2 2 2087 QIAN Hong CHN
3 3 2002 GAO Jun CHN
4 5 2000 Chai Po Wa HKG
5 4 1995 CHEN Zihe CHN
6 11 1966 LIU Wei CHN
7 10 1961 TANG Weiyi CHN
8 6 1952 WANG Chen CHN
9 7 1949 LI Bun Hui PRK
10 6 1937 CHEN Jing TPE
11 9 1932 YU Sun Bok PRK
12 14 1906 GENG Lijuna CAN
13 12 1903 JING Jun Hong SIN
14 16 1897 WU Na CHN
15 15 1894 ZHENG Yuan CHN
16 16 1890 Chire KOYAMA JPN
17 18 1870 1 Jie Schöpp GER
18 20 1853 2 Csilla BATORFI HUN
18 19 1853 2 Otilia BADESCU ROM
20 22 1848 CHAN Tan Lui HKG
21 21 1836 4 Nicole STRUSE GER
22 23 1832 YING Ronghui CHN
23 24 1827 5 Bettine VRIESEKOOP NED
24 - 1794 QIAO Yunping CHN
25 26 1790 LI Mi Suk PRK
26 28 1785 LI Ju CHN
27 30 1782 YANG Ying CHN
28 27 1778 Fumiyo YAMASHITA JPN
29 29 1774 XU Jing TPE
30 30 1773 6 Xiaoming WANG-DRECHOU FRA
31 25 1766 CHENG To HKG
32 32 1764 AN Hui Suk PRK
32 33 1764 Diana HUANG CAN
34 34 1753 7 Fliura ABBATE-BULATOVA ITA
35 35 1747 8 Marie SVENSSON SWE
36 36 1740 9 TU Dai Yong SUI
37 38 1738 WI Sun Bok PRK
38 38 1714 10 Emilia Elena CIOSU ROM
39 - 1705 LEE Kyung Sun KOR
40 46 1701 PARK Hae Jung KOR
41 48 1689 PARK Kyung Hae KOR
42 42 1685 11 Jasna FAZLIC-LUPULESCU YUG
42 42 1685 11 Olga NEMES GER
44 41 1684 LEE Jung Im KOR
45 39 1677 13 Elena TIMINA RUS
46 44 1669 14 Daniela GERGELCHEVA BUL
46 45 1669 14 Alena SUCHANKOVA CZE
48 43 1668 16 Mirjam HOOMAN NED
49 - 1666 Mitsue ENDO JPN
50 47 1656 17 Galina MELNIK RUS
51 - 1654 LEE Tae Joo KOR
52 48 1651 18 Asa SVENSSON SWE
53 50 1649 19 Lisa LOMAS ENG
54 52 1642 20 Krisztina TOTH HUN
55 51 1640 KIM Boon Sik KOR
56 56 1639 21 Irina PALINA RUS
56 66 1639 RYU Ji Hye KOR
58 53 1638 22 Valentna POPOVA SVK
59 - 1632 JUN-FENG Amy USA
60 58 1617 23 NI Xialian LUX
61 57 1615 GAO Dong Ping SIN
62 59 1610 24 Alessia ARISI ITA
62 54 1610 Rika SATO JPN
64 70 1609 LI Chunli NZL
65 60 1603 25 Gerdie KEEN NED
. . . .
95 93 1447 44 Christiane PRAEDEL GER
102 101 1411 48 Elke SCHALL GER
136 138 1303 72 Christina FISCHER GER
213 217 1145 126 Nicole DELLE GER
222 224 1132 132 Nina WOLF GER
228 231 1121 137 Cornelia BÖTTCHER GER
247 252 1091 146 Sandra STROEZEL GER
(08/1994)