U.S. Open Entries Shooting Up
They are up to 847, with more likely being entered as I type this. (They were at 835 when I started writing this.) You can check the numbers, see who's entered, and find out who is in what events here. The deadline for entering the Open ended on May 24, last Friday.
Note that there is no Men's or Women's Singles listed, or Under 21 Men and Women. These four events are part of the ITTF Pro Tour event, technically called the "America's Challenge Series." You can see the list of entries for that here. (This goes straight to "Men Entries." For women, click on the link for "Women Entries" at top left.) The listing says there are 86 entries, which seems strange because I see 34 men and 32 women listed, or 66 total. I don't see a separate listing for Under 21 - they seem to be included in the Men's and Women's listings. The deadline for entering is June 3, so more entries are probably coming. Here's the ITTF page for the America's Challenge Series.
There's an overlap between the events - many players are entered in both the Open and the Pro Tour Events. (But there are restrictions - for example, players were told they had to choose between the Under 21 events and the Junior Team Competition in the Open, since both start Tuesday morning.) To get an exact number I'd have to go through the Pro Tour entries one by one to see if they are also in the Open, so I'll leave that to someone else. (Plus it's kind of pointless right now, since the Pro Tour deadline isn't until June 3, so there'll be more entries.)
It'll be the most entries at an Open since the ratings went online in 1994 (so you can check the numbers), and has already topped the most for a Nationals, the 837 in 2006. The "normal" record is still held by the 1974 and 1975 U.S. Opens in Oklahoma City and Houston, where we had over 1000 entries. We were also over 800 at the Open a number of times in the 1980s when it was held in Miami Beach. (I did all the computer entry input for two U.S. Opens, I believe in 1988 and 1989.) Technically, the record is held by the 1990 U.S. Open in Baltimore, where there were something like 2000 players, but that included players in the World Veterans Championships and a World Junior Championships (not sure of the exact title of that).
One discrepancy problem - numbers given online for Opens and Nationals do not show those entered only in doubles, hardbat, or sandpaper events (since they are not rated by USATT), while the listing for this year's Open does. This is especially true since the introduction of hardbat events at the Nationals in 1997 and at the Open in 1998. For those years, you can probably add 20-30 entries to the numbers. Before that, perhaps add 10-20 for doubles-only players.
I'll be at the U.S. Open (of course!) both coaching and playing. My focus there will be coaching, but I'm also entered in a bunch of hardbat events (Open, Over 40, Open Doubles, Over 50 Doubles) and Open Sandpaper. I've won a bunch of these hardbat events in the past, and hope to add a few more while I can still play. If there are a lot of conflicts in my schedule with players I'm coaching, however, I might have to default some of them.
Hardbat doubles has always been my strength. (I'm normally a sponge player, and coach sponge, but hardbat is a sideline.) I've won it 13 times at the Open or Nationals, nine times with Ty Hoff, four times with Steve Berger. Neither of them are playing this year, so I have a new partner - Jay Turberville in both Open Hardbat Doubles and Over 50 Hardbat Doubles. (They only started the Over 50 Doubles last year, and this is my first time playing in it.) Hopefully our styles will mesh. In hardbat, I'm an all-out forehand attacker with a chopping backhand. I believe Jay is mostly attack from both sides, though he can also chop. As to singles, I've won Over 40 four times and Open Hardbat twice, but it's harder and harder every year to play my all-out forehand attack, and I'm 53. I could of course chop more, but then my level goes down. (Also, I use a very fast hardbat racket for attacking, and it's difficult to chop with it. If I went to a slower, more defensive blade, my forehand attacks would be less effective.)
I am so tempted to enter Over 50 Men, which starts Friday at 6PM. The top seed is rated 2280, not that far ahead of me. (Dan Seemiller isn't entered - so far.) If I play well, I'd be in the mix for that event. However, I'm already in too many events, and the more I play, the more conflicts there would be with my coaching. Plus, perhaps even more important, while I can go from sponge to hardbat easily, the reverse is difficult, and after playing hardbat events from Tue-Thur, I doubt I'd play well with sponge on Friday. (Though I would be playing some sponge - warming up players I coach. Not quite the same thing, though)
How Table Tennis Players Should Introduce Themselves
I've never been good at recognizing people. At tournaments people regularly come up to me to say hi, and I'm lost as to who they are. It's not their fault; it's mine. Many of them were at camps I've run, or players I've played or coached against. So here's my solutions, as I explained to some of our players at MDTTC: for now on, at tournaments, table tennis players should adopt a new method of greeting whereby instead of saying "hi" and shaking hands, they call out their rating and shadow practice their forehand and backhand strokes. From that I will unerringly know who they are. I'm sure most could similarly recognize my snappy forehand stroke, or my even more distinctive forehand pendulum serve where I tend to jerk my head.
Table Tennista
As usual, there are lots of international articles at Table Tennista. Here are the current headlines.
Laser vs. Ping-Pong Ball
Here's a video (2:21) showing what happens when a laser beam hits normal objects, including (58 seconds in for 22 seconds) a ping-pong ball.
USA Soccer Team Members Play TT
Here's a video (5:12) from last year where "U.S. Men's National Team players Brek Shea, Juan Agudelo, and Heath Pearce battle it out for table tennis supremacy during their downtime from training."
Non-Table Tennis Writing
Yesterday Science Fiction Writers of American published my article "Fifty Writing Quotes." It's literally what the title says, fifty quotes I came up with about writing for the benefit of writers. They pay 5 cents/word, so I got $45 for the article. (Here's the direct permanent link.)
I also sold two science fiction stories this month: "Human Help Desk" (1000 words) on May 3 to Abyss & Apex, and "Tyler's Ten" (6800 words) to New Myths Magazine. Plus my SF story "Better or Worse?" came out in Suddenly Lost in Words Vol. 3 on May 23. It's been a busy year for my SF writing; I have two other stories forthcoming, "Leashing the Muse" (4800 words) coming out soon in Space and Time Magazine, and "Galahad Returns" (6300 words) in Weird Tales, scheduled for their October issue.
Stop Monkeying Around
An orangutan with a modified penhold grip. (If you can't see it in Facebook, try this.)
***
Send us your own coaching news!
Re: May 30, 2013
About hidden serves. It is simply a bad rule - although created with good intentions. Simply put it is very hard to enforce it. Same with all the recent attempts to formalize it. The rules must be
a) simple (that is can be undersood by 99.9% of players),
b) logical (no contradiction with existing rules, reasoning behind them must be sound),
c) enforceable (should not generate more controversies than before the rule was introduced)
Even worse was the rule that banned the boosters and speedglue - not that I am so much in love with the speedglue. I can take it or leave it. It's just that the rule is illogical (original reasoning for it was demonstrated to be almost completely false), hard to enforce (regular player cannot check the legality of his paddle unless he comes to a tournament where they have some pretty expensive equipment), unnecessary (who the heck really thinks that not having speedglue/boosters increased sport's popularity or slowed down the game) and finally generated a lot of bad feelings. Also the way it is currently interpreted by ITTF the rule bans some ways of assembling paddle which is just plain crazy - the umpire/referee cannot have any idea what was done wit h this paddle before it was brough to the tournament, and he shouldn't. He needs to qualify or disqualify the paddle as it is at the moment of the match, and that's it. The devices used by ITTF are intended just for that, so why the need for illogical language of the rule?
Anyways, it's over and done and now we reap the consequences... the main problem is that ITTF seems to think that solving problems of the sport as a whole by changing the very basic rules is a good idea. And that is pretty dangerous. Soon we will be told that to make TT more telegenic we all have to play in Red or Black shirts only, or that the ball will have to made of special fluorescent material etc etc.
And don't even start me on the rumors that blades will have to be certified, or that ITTF came up with the new tools to determine whether the rubbers were boosted by measuring the bounce. I cannot wait to see that implemented.
Re: May 30, 2013
Some good points, Jim, though I think a major reason for the speed glue ban was health concerns, not just slowing down the sport. (But I'm sure both were argued, rightly or wrongly.) There's definitely a lot less gluing now since speed glues are no longer on sale by distributors, plus the sound of speed glue is rather distinctive, and so while a referee might not enforce it, it takes a special kind of cheater to do it knowing everyone can hear the sound.
As to the service rules, I used to get really irritated at umpires who didn't enforce the hidden serve rule as it is currently written. Since I'm coaching and playing every day, and have done so for decades, I have no problem telling if a serve is hidden (though of course some are borderline). But I've come to realize that umpires, who do not have this daily experience for decades and are volunteers, really cannot tell, nor can the average player. There is, of course, one key rule that's rarely enforced that would solve the problem - that it is the responsiblity of the player to serve so that the umpire can see he is serving legally, so if the umpire can't tell if the serve is hidden, then by the rules it is clearly illegal.
I blogged a while back about a proposed rule that would require the ball to be visible throughout the serve by both umpires or where the umpires would sit if there weren't umpires. This would solve the problem - even if you can't quite tell if both umpires can see the ball, any ball that is hidden from the receiver would clearly be hidden from the umpires, and so illegal. So the result is the receiver can see the ball, and the problem is solved. But the rule probably won't pass because the powers that be have no common sense.
Re: May 30, 2013
In reply to Re: May 30, 2013 by Larry Hodges
But, Larry, that is exactly the problem - "ye shalt not" introduce rules which are a) confusing; b) very subjective; c) not easily enforced. You are complaining - and with reason - that the umpires do not properly enforce the "hidden serve" rule. But that is exactly why they don't - it is a bad rule. I do not mean that they don't like it or decided it's too much trouble and therefore decided not to enforce it too tightly - as is the case with 65 mph speed limit or jaywalking - but because they know that every time they make a decision like that it will cause trouble, not to mention they really are quite often not 100% sure whether the serve was proper or not. Therefore they stay away from it and interfere only when it is super-obvious.
The solution is not to run special education courses for the referees, or to over-use the rule, or to punish severely the players who serve borderline or illegal serves - the proper solution is to rework the rule. Abandon it completely (not gonna happen), or replace it with something different but reasonable. For instance, it was suggested that the serve must be done so that the entire body of the server except for his hands up to his elbows (or perhaps just his wrists) is behind the ball during the serve. That of course would mean adjusting/changing a lot of serves but it doesn't seem like a huge thing to ask (at least not to me). Even if that will lead to a considearble simplification of the serves at the elite level, I do not see that as a bad thing. But that's just me...
Re: May 30, 2013
In reply to Re: May 30, 2013 by JimT
Hi Jim, I'm not suggesting special education courses or anything else like that, but simply changing the rule to the following, as I wrote above: "... require the ball to be visible throughout the serve by both umpires or where the umpires would sit if there weren't umpires." This is as easily enforceable as the 6-inch rule. If a player tosses the ball up 5.5 inches, few umpires call it, but it's not a problem because even a 4-inch toss is easy for the receiver to react to. If the server tosses the ball up 2 inches, he gets an advantage, but the umpire will almost always call that. Similarly, if a server goes to the edge with this new rule so it's borderline whether an umpire can see the ball throughout the serve, then it's not a problem because the receiver would then obviously see it. If the server tried to serve so the receiver cannot see the ball - which is what we're trying to eliminate - then it would obviously be illegal since the umpires obviously couldn't see it, and so it would be called.
Re: May 30, 2013
the highest rated pips-out penhold player that i know is he zhi wen, currently #65 in the ittf world rankings. amazingly, he is 51 as of tomrrow (happy birthday juanito!)! to me, he zhi wen's style is the most beautiful in the world. his mystifying high-toss serve...his tactical genius...his mind-blowing blocking at such acute angles...his ferocious hitting...he is a credit to all of humanity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsQqCrHs_hI