This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Active Member
I might have missed that thread. Although sometimes popcorn is super tasty too...
says
Spin and more spin.
says
Spin and more spin.
Well-Known Member
Super Moderator
Heh heh. I'm keeping the money.
Hey, I'll even pay double. I just want a new video or 3.
I've seen so much on the forums lately that seems like it would be good material. And, right about now, I could use something to make me laugh.
Sent from Deep Space by Abacus
Last edited:
says
Spin and more spin.
says
Spin and more spin.
Well-Known Member
Super Moderator
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
I have heard about plain idly , rava idly , even tandoori idly , never heard about popcorn idly ... what kind of fusion cuisine is that one NextLevel ?
... what kind of fusion cuisine is that one NextLevel ?
This user has no status.
Active Member
says
Spin and more spin.
says
Spin and more spin.
Well-Known Member
Super Moderator
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
Bah, don't worry about not knowing anyone, NextLevel, it's not important. Believe in yourself instead.
The levels of self-aggrandisement and arrogance displayed in your post suggests that you will rise effortlessly to the very top of any association.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Bah, don't worry about not knowing anyone, NextLevel, it's not important. Believe in yourself instead.
The levels of self-aggrandisement and arrogance displayed in your post suggests that you will rise effortlessly to the very top of any association.
I think it is better to ask questions about what you don't understand or explain why you are acting like Weikert is your daddy. What did he say in the podcast that impressed you?
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Dude?
You do sound a bit as if jealousy has got the better of you.
FYI: Thomas Weikert used to play Bundesliga and still plays pretty decent. His TTR is still translated about 2300 USATT. So he definitely knows what it takes for modern TT.
You're sure you know as much as him?
Well you don't seem to know the meaning of the word humbleness.
Could it be that your expectations in the podcast may have been placed a little too high?
Isn´t that him over there?? Godda go.
Last edited:
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
I think I've got even better word: VIRTUALLY!
No, but the Olympics is to blame for trying to solve a "problem" the wrong way. Btw I used quotation marks because I don't perceive the Chinese dominance as a problem at all. I mean, I'm honestly missing the reasons why you, me, bzing, violoniste18, IOC or anybody alse should give a FF about player's NA or continent or planet they're from or any of that BS.
So for me, IOC = guilty.
I agree, but that shouldn't change with 4-5 additional top players. And, also, don't you think that the best way of promoting sport is by promoting quality no matter the nation/race/borders? Don't you think that LSW deserves to participate at the Olympic singles because of her (and I'll qoute you on this) "fair play and effort"? IOC = guilty.
I remember Eric the Eel, and I agree with you - his performance was inspiring. Still, imagine that Eric was chosen to compete but Pieter van den Hoogenband, Alexander Popov or Gary Hall, Jr. were (figuratively) banned because of some quota. That would suck.
Exactly, throwing a bone, I couldn't put it better myself. And that's not fair neither to us (non-Chinese) nor Chinese. I feel really shitty about that. I'd rather loose a match against a much better opponent and be happy and thankful for the opportunity than win the consolation prize at second-rate tournament (which bronze at the Olympics, in a very literal way, is).
Like I said before, I can't see any problem there.
What better inspiration and honor than playing against the master? This is what William Henzell wrote about his 3 proudest moments: "3rd [proudest moment] was the 2008 Beijing Olympics and my match against 3-time World Champ Wang Liqin. As I won the first set and raced to a big lead in the second set, I remember the eerie silence that came over the venue. The Chinese players are like demi gods and there was disbelief about what was happening. We'll forget what happened next but it was still fun."
If it were "not solely", I could accept that. But "not at all" seems like more adequate description to me.
Last edited:
This user has no status.
Active Member
The IOC isn't trying to solve the problem of Chinese dominance in our sport, they are trying to limit its effect on the Olympic Ideals, which are key features of what the event stands for. Your rebuttal about the Olympic Movement not caring at all about who the best athletes are is the key thing which shows your intractability on this subject. The best two athletes in the world are still highly likely to win Gold and Silver. The compromise, which you seem unable to allow, is that the Bronze medal is available to the rest of the world. This is an important concession because medals carry huge emotional and inspirational weight, well beyond what a plucky performance from an outsider can achieve. Henzell's performance in 2008 was great and I'm sure was a personal highlight for him, something to remember for the crowd, and worthy of note for those of us who are already invested in the sport enough to know what a big deal that is. But it won't have the depth of impact that a Bronze medal will have internationally.
Again, those of us who already play and are knowledgeable about the sport will know that winning Olympic bronze with a 2 man quota in effect is something of a hollow achievement - you're essentially the best of the non-Chinese players, unless ZJK has a meltdown. But this is a compromise not particularly aimed at us - it's aimed at the wider community and fills different Olympic goals than a purists vision of outright sporting achievement. You can't see a problem with an inevitable lock-in of all the medals, and that tells me that you don't know (or don't care) about the Olympics, their history, or what they stand for.
If you don't like this political aspect of the Olympic Movement, then the modern Olympics just aren't for you. You can moan about it all you like, but it's like saying you don't like the sea because of the waves, or the sky because of the clouds. It's right there in the Olympic Charter, at the very heart of what it stands for. It's a highly political movement which uses sport as a tool for inspiration and encouragement. They aren't likely to accept a sport where one country utterly dominates without putting a compromise in place to prevent that utter domination from limiting what the Charter stands for.
So I don't really understand what you want to achieve in your posts. You either don't understand what the Olympics is all about, or want the fundamental principles of the Olympics to change (highly unlikely), or you don't want TT to be part of it. Or are you just moaning for the sake of moaning? Because what's your solution? If the ITTF demanded that we go back to a 3 man quota this would likely lead to TT being pulled from the event and replaced by a different sport which offers more via diverse political impact.
Again, those of us who already play and are knowledgeable about the sport will know that winning Olympic bronze with a 2 man quota in effect is something of a hollow achievement - you're essentially the best of the non-Chinese players, unless ZJK has a meltdown. But this is a compromise not particularly aimed at us - it's aimed at the wider community and fills different Olympic goals than a purists vision of outright sporting achievement. You can't see a problem with an inevitable lock-in of all the medals, and that tells me that you don't know (or don't care) about the Olympics, their history, or what they stand for.
If you don't like this political aspect of the Olympic Movement, then the modern Olympics just aren't for you. You can moan about it all you like, but it's like saying you don't like the sea because of the waves, or the sky because of the clouds. It's right there in the Olympic Charter, at the very heart of what it stands for. It's a highly political movement which uses sport as a tool for inspiration and encouragement. They aren't likely to accept a sport where one country utterly dominates without putting a compromise in place to prevent that utter domination from limiting what the Charter stands for.
So I don't really understand what you want to achieve in your posts. You either don't understand what the Olympics is all about, or want the fundamental principles of the Olympics to change (highly unlikely), or you don't want TT to be part of it. Or are you just moaning for the sake of moaning? Because what's your solution? If the ITTF demanded that we go back to a 3 man quota this would likely lead to TT being pulled from the event and replaced by a different sport which offers more via diverse political impact.
Last edited:
says
Spin and more spin.
says
Spin and more spin.
Well-Known Member
Super Moderator
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
@AndySmith
1. Hey, chill, man. I've just asked a question and it's been answered (although more or less negatively) by the ITTF's main man! That's awesome!
2. Yes, I totally dislike the way the things stand right now at the Olympics, so I expressed my opinion and made my point (or "moaned" as you kindly noticed). I thought that forums are meant for that. I mean, you freely expressed your opinion on the subject too.
3. "Not liking the sky because of the clouds" is a bad simile. Be aware that there are real people at IOC that can be elected, spoken to and influenced on. At least, in theory.
4. When I said "not at all seems like more adequate description to me", I was using a figure of speech called h y p e r b o l e.
5. Truth be told, my knowledge of the politics behind "Olympism" is very modest at best, and the more I learn the more I dislike it. So this conversation has been enlightening, if not pleasant, in that respect.
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medal_sweeps_in_Olympic_athletics
@UpSideDownCarl
http://www.slate.com/blogs/five_rin...corated_gymnast_is_totally_indefensible_.html
1. Hey, chill, man. I've just asked a question and it's been answered (although more or less negatively) by the ITTF's main man! That's awesome!
2. Yes, I totally dislike the way the things stand right now at the Olympics, so I expressed my opinion and made my point (or "moaned" as you kindly noticed). I thought that forums are meant for that. I mean, you freely expressed your opinion on the subject too.
3. "Not liking the sky because of the clouds" is a bad simile. Be aware that there are real people at IOC that can be elected, spoken to and influenced on. At least, in theory.
4. When I said "not at all seems like more adequate description to me", I was using a figure of speech called h y p e r b o l e.
5. Truth be told, my knowledge of the politics behind "Olympism" is very modest at best, and the more I learn the more I dislike it. So this conversation has been enlightening, if not pleasant, in that respect.
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medal_sweeps_in_Olympic_athletics
@UpSideDownCarl
http://www.slate.com/blogs/five_rin...corated_gymnast_is_totally_indefensible_.html
This user has no status.
Active Member
Hyperbole, or just exaggeration? It's a fine line. And perhaps you're applying hyperbole to my attitude - I'm really very calm when trying to explain this.
It's great that you appreciate what the Olympics is all about now though, regardless of how you value it. Bring subject to their policy changes (their whims, perhaps) is the cost of entry, and they make no secret of how they see themselves - not just a competition of the best and brightest. It makes it worth more than a simple competition, or less, depending on who you ask. Certainly different.
It's great that you appreciate what the Olympics is all about now though, regardless of how you value it. Bring subject to their policy changes (their whims, perhaps) is the cost of entry, and they make no secret of how they see themselves - not just a competition of the best and brightest. It makes it worth more than a simple competition, or less, depending on who you ask. Certainly different.
This user has no status.
This user has no status.
Member
I see that you took offense at my post so I'll try explain what I meant. Also, as I'm sure you know, I like most of your posts and I think you know I'm not a troublemaker, so here's how I see it:
In the current discussion climate here and on other forums it's pretty universal to accuse the people in charge of our sport of thinking they know better than anyone else and that they have a severe lack of understanding of how things really work.
So I'm not laughing at you, but the irony of your post did give me a good chuckle as it showed me that you and they aren't that different at all, however unintentional that was on your part.
Did I mean to offend you?
No, the smileys at the end should have given a hint about that.
About your post, I honestly do not understand. What's the link to mine?
says
Spin and more spin.
says
Spin and more spin.
Well-Known Member
Super Moderator
Wait. Did you really just say that. That is funny. All good though. From my perspective it seems that everyone else is chill. And you at least have given the appearance of being irate over this whole subject. So I would say, overall, "hey, chill, man" is a good idea.
The World Cup: It is not such a big tournament. The biggest challenge in it is qualifying. It happens every year though. And only two people from each country can qualify. The reason is: they want to try and have representatives from as many countries as possible while having the total number capped. This is so that there is a potential for players who are unknown to go further. Like, we may never have really known who Quadri Aruna is without the 2014 World Cup where he played quite well.
The Olympics: Similar to World Cup except that it is harder to qualify. The qualification process is more detailed. And it only happens every 4 years.
World Table Tennis Championships (WTTC). Hundreds play. I think the limit is 5 per country. The host country can have 6 qualify. So, as I stated in a previous post, the tournament you are looking for and looking forward to is the WTTC. The singles event happens every other year on Odd years. So the next one will be 2017.
By the way, in the 2011 WTTC, I believe there were 6 CNT players in the quarter finals (quarter finals = 6 of 8 spots for CNT). In 2013, I think, from the semifinals on, was an all China affair (in 2011 Timo Boll got to the semi-finals). In 2015, no CNT players lost to a player who was not on the CNT. XX and ZJK lost to Fang Bo. FZD and FB lost to Ma Long.
And based on your link, I guess you are now arguing about gymnastics as well. Well, at least you understand that it is how the IOC wants the Olympics to be.
Does it make it the best tournament? Nah. It is what it is. Andy has really done a great job explaining the connection between the Olympics and politics. To me it is okay if the Olympics are what they are. As long as there is also a WTTC.
Other tournaments for you to follow if you feel the way you do:
The Asia Games. Those are harder to win than the Olympics.
The Chinese National Games. Same.
And from both of those tournaments you will end up seeing a lot of players you will never see in international play who are darn good.
I also suggest you look to watch the Chinese Super League. Then you start understanding how many great players there are in China.
Last edited:
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Yes, maybe they were too high. But why does that mean I need meds? Could you explain in more detail?
IF you read the main podcast thread, Tornado16 expressed the same sentiments that I did. Does he need meds too?
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
I think sometimes, it is better to ask for clarification of what someone is writing than to misinterpret it to get a chuckle.
What I meant was that there was nothing that Weikert said that one could not know if one read Larry Hodges blog or followed ITTF discussions that were done on ooakforum or mytt or ttd.
Maybe if you don't follow such discussions, you may have been impressed by the interview. I may have been too. But all I felt was that I was hearing things that I already knew. When someone tells you only things that people can already know, then it is was an interview the person controlled.
This user has no status.
Well-Known Member
Let me give an example. There are people who do not know the exact rules for selecting Olympic players. There are people who do not know that the rules in 2008 were different from the rules in 2012 and that the rules in 2016 were different from both 2012 and 2008.
Now if Weikert spoke about possible changes to the rules, that would be interesting. If he spoke about a change that no one had looked at, that would be very interesting. If he told a story that influenced a change that none of us knew, that would be extremely interesting.
If he just talks about the changes and lists the players who could and could not qualify because of the changes, this is stuff you can know by going to the ittf website.
What he said in the interview was almost exclusively in the second category. I appreciate that it is exciting to people who do not read a lot of online TT news or do not use the ITTF website to answer questions. But I think it is important to know that nothing he said was particularly surprising or interesting to people who keep abreast of these things. Maybe nothing he says should be, and he is definitely a seasoned politician.
If you listen to the podcast, do you get the impression that there is any dissatisfaction with significant aspects of modern table tennis or that the ittf is addressing them?
Now if Weikert spoke about possible changes to the rules, that would be interesting. If he spoke about a change that no one had looked at, that would be very interesting. If he told a story that influenced a change that none of us knew, that would be extremely interesting.
If he just talks about the changes and lists the players who could and could not qualify because of the changes, this is stuff you can know by going to the ittf website.
What he said in the interview was almost exclusively in the second category. I appreciate that it is exciting to people who do not read a lot of online TT news or do not use the ITTF website to answer questions. But I think it is important to know that nothing he said was particularly surprising or interesting to people who keep abreast of these things. Maybe nothing he says should be, and he is definitely a seasoned politician.
If you listen to the podcast, do you get the impression that there is any dissatisfaction with significant aspects of modern table tennis or that the ittf is addressing them?
Similar threads
