Is Liu Guoliang “fairly” one of the greatest players of all time?

[Kopp]

‘During his prime (1996–1999) Liu played with TSP Spinpips on his forehand and Mark V on his backhand, yet still on the Stiga Clipper blade. The Spinpip rubbers was banned in the late 2000 and their counterpart Spinpip Md the year after. Both times because of the aspect ratio (ratio of pips height to width) and its structure of the pip and the arrangement of the pips that made the rubber extremely spinny and unpredictable; and therefore judged to be too advantageous. It is therefore uncertain if Liu actually ever played with Stiga rubbers in competition.’ Wikipedia, accessed 16 August 2023, <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Guoliang>

Can he “fairly” be considered one of the greatest players of all time? He was playing with too great advantages, it's almost cheating.

 

[hclnnkhg]

‘During his prime (1996–1999) Liu played with TSP Spinpips on his forehand and Mark V on his backhand, yet still on the Stiga Clipper blade. The Spinpip rubbers was banned in the late 2000 and their counterpart Spinpip Md the year after. Both times because of the aspect ratio (ratio of pips height to width) and its structure of the pip and the arrangement of the pips that made the rubber extremely spinny and unpredictable; and therefore judged to be too advantageous. It is therefore uncertain if Liu actually ever played with Stiga rubbers in competition.’ Wikipedia, accessed 16 August 2023, <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Guoliang>

Can he “fairly” be considered one of the greatest players of all time? He was playing with too great advantages, it's almost cheating.

It is fair because he was playing with legal equipment at the time which other players could have played with as well.

 

[suds79]

He had legal equipment by the rules. There's no almost about it. Almost isn't cheating. Players today "almost" hide their serves but what really matters is if it's actually hidden or not and if it gets called.

He's absolutely, by essentially everyone who follows the sport, considered one of the greatest players of all time who's impact has gone beyond just his play at the table.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

LGL was heavily negatively influenced by ITTF rule changes.
That possibly took away more wins for him and also shorten his career.
He never hold a 30 year grudge, like someone who is now banned on TTD.

To me, Liu was a good player. But he was in the same era with a top Swede, which took on 4 or 5 generations of Chinese champions after LGL. I will rate that Swede higher than LGL.

LGL, however, has been a super coach since his retirement and really bought out some of the best players of all time under his watch. So good that, it is so difficult for any other coach to even get to "par"

 

[zeio]

I used the original Spinpips. Extremely spinny? Yes. Unpredictable? No. It was essentially an inverted rubber in disguise. While not as spinny as tacky rubbers of the time, I could get a higher spin-to-speed ratio out of it than I did with Mark V and Sriver. That's its biggest strength.

By the way, the original Spinpips was released in 1988.

 

[Kopp]

Their overall record was that Liu had a 5-4 lead. Could it have been a way around if Liu had used a setup that was legal today?

 

[NextLevel]

I used the original Spinpips. Extremely spinny? Yes. Unpredictable? No. It was essentially an inverted rubber in disguise. While not as spinny as tacky rubbers of the time, I could get a higher spin-to-speed ratio out of it than I did with Mark V and Sriver. That's its biggest strength.

By the way, the original Spinpips was released in 1988.

It was probably unpredictable in the sense that as a pip, one could smash more easily with it than you could with inverted.

 

[zeio]

The H2H between LGL and Waldner should be 6-3. LGL won the first 6 and Waldner won the last 3. All of those matches took place before the first aspect ratio reduction, which didn't take effect until 2000/10/1.

Reproducing the following post from 2011 here for future reference since the original article is gone forever.

http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=43148&PID=536519&title=liu-guoliang#536519

Here's the thing. Liu Guoliang's game had been cracked by the Swedes.

Liu's first defeat at the hands of Jorgen Persson came about at the World Cup in Jan, 2000. Persson claimed after his victory that "he has found a way to beat Liu Guoliang." People thought it was far-stretched.

　　“我被瑞典人破译了！”刘国梁赛后惊呼道，“瓦尔德内尔和佩尔森打我的战术大同小异，接我的发球、对我球路的适应，超乎我的想象。而且，牢牢地把我的进攻路线给封死了。”

　　刘国梁对瑞典选手一直保持着很高的胜率，是中国队对付瑞典人最管用的“ 利刃”。特别是与瓦尔德内尔和佩尔森的交锋，刘国梁保持不败的纪录（尿检事件之前）。不过，刘国梁在国内的战绩则不太怎么样，可以说是：内战外行，外战内行。其中的原因，就是国内的选手对刘国梁球路和战术都很熟，而瑞典选手总是吃不透他。现在情况变了，瑞典人把刘国梁研究透了。佩尔森在今年的世界杯赛上第一次战胜刘国梁后，就兴奋地宣称：已经找到了战胜刘国梁的办法。当时没有多少人相信，但在中瑞对抗赛之后，包括刘国梁在内很多人都相信了。

Liu lost again in their next two encounters, once at the WTTTC in Feb, 2000 and once at the China vs Sweden Challenge in Jul, 2000.

Liu Guoliang had won in all 6 previous encounters against Waldner between 1992 and 1999. Waldner ended Liu's winning streak and turned the tide to capture 3 back-to-back wins, first two at said WTTTC and Challenge, with the third being at the Sydney Olympics in Sep, 2000.

It should be emphasized that all of those defeats took place before the 40mm ball, reduced aspect ratio, no-hidden-serve rule and 11-point game were put into effect. Those combined together was the last straw to his retirement.

Liu Guoliang was, in a sense, outdone both tactically and technically.

 

[zeio]

It was probably unpredictable in the sense that as a pip, one could smash more easily with it than you could with inverted.

To be frank, characterizing arguably the spinniest shortpips in history like that is comical. I wouldn't say unpredictable even for Spectol with its sinking effect.

That would be like saying H3 is extremely spinny yet unpredictable because of its quirky trajectory and kick and therefore too advantageous.

 

[NDH]

Can he “fairly” be considered one of the greatest players of all time? He was playing with too great advantages, it's almost cheating.

This has been answered already, so I don't want to repeat too much.

But from my POV, using *legal* equipment that is available to everyone at the time is absolutely fair.

You could comfortably argue that the H3 the Chinese are using is more *unfair* and gives them an unfair advantage.

This isn't like an athlete who was found to be taking drugs.

Or adding cork to a baseball bat.

This is simply using widely available, legal equipment, and doing it better than anyone else at the time.

As for whether you consider LGL to be one of the greatest players is a different question.

For me.... He's not really in the conversation of "Greatest ever".

 

[NextLevel]

This has been answered already, so I don't want to repeat too much.

But from my POV, using *legal* equipment that is available to everyone at the time is absolutely fair.

You could comfortably argue that the H3 the Chinese are using is more *unfair* and gives them an unfair advantage.

This isn't like an athlete who was found to be taking drugs.

Or adding cork to a baseball bat.

This is simply using widely available, legal equipment, and doing it better than anyone else at the time.

As for whether you consider LGL to be one of the greatest players is a different question.

For me.... He's not really in the conversation of "Greatest ever".

Greatest ever no, but that's because he has a peer/peers that had quantifiably better results on the same era. But he was World champion, Olympic Champion and World Cup winner, and arguably the best server of the hidden serve era. He was/is one of the all time greats, it is an open question whether his case would have been buttressed without early retirement, though he was essentially on the same path titles wise as Kong Linghui. It would be hard to do an objective ranking of greatest players of his era and not have in the top 5 based on his achievements.

 

[NDH]

Greatest ever no, but that's because he has a peer/peers that had quantifiably better results on the same era. But he was World champion, Olympic Champion and World Cup winner, and arguably the best server of the hidden serve era. He was/is one of the all time greats, it is an open question whether his case would have been buttressed without early retirement, though he was essentially on the same path titles wise as Kong Linghui. It would be hard to do an objective ranking of greatest players of his era and not have in the top 5 based on his achievements.

Yeah I get that, but there will always be reasons/caveats for why/why not certain players are argued amongst "greatest ever".

I also think "greatest ever" and "greatest of their era" are very different things.

Take Tennis.....

In 100 years, the argument could conceivably be..... Was Djokovic, Nadal or Federer the greatest ever?

Borg, Sampras, Agassi, Connors, Lendl (etc etc) just wouldn't have enough about them to be in the same conversation (but could comfortably be talked about as the greatest of their era).

Same goes for Basketball.

For those who *don't* think it's Jordan..... What if he'd played more seasons (and didn't do his Baseball thing)?

"Greatest ever" is such a hard thing to quantify in sports as technology and trends evolve (just look at how many 3's are in Basketball these days, or how many yards QB's are passing for on a weekly basis).

There are very few professional sports people who would universally be seen as the "Greatest ever" of their sport (in history).

Maybe a good title for a new thread!

 

[NextLevel]

Yeah I get that, but there will always be reasons/caveats for why/why not certain players are argued amongst "greatest ever".

I also think "greatest ever" and "greatest of their era" are very different things.

Take Tennis.....

In 100 years, the argument could conceivably be..... Was Djokovic, Nadal or Federer the greatest ever?

Borg, Sampras, Agassi, Connors, Lendl (etc etc) just wouldn't have enough about them to be in the same conversation (but could comfortably be talked about as the greatest of their era).

Same goes for Basketball.

For those who *don't* think it's Jordan..... What if he'd played more seasons (and didn't do his Baseball thing)?

"Greatest ever" is such a hard thing to quantify in sports as technology and trends evolve (just look at how many 3's are in Basketball these days, or how many yards QB's are passing for on a weekly basis).

There are very few professional sports people who would universally be seen as the "Greatest ever" of their sport (in history).

Maybe a good title for a new thread!

There are people who would argue that Sampras is the greatest ever with some justification and he was clearly the greatest player of his era and probably of any era. Players can't entirely control the rule changes that affect their era. I am old enough to see how equipment changes and travel affected tennis in a way that doesn't get given sufficient discussion in many of the GOAT debates. Better rackets. better string technology, using balls and surface changes to homogenize surface performance, we now have a situation where grass while it is not clay plays more similarly to clay than ever before and the serve and volley style is essentially dead.

It's why I will not just focus on the player but will also discuss in the context of the era with similar rules- 38mm ball, speed glue, hidden serve era with sets to 21 points and 5 serves. That Waldner was the greatest player of that era is hardly disputed, but LGL and Kong Linghui were not that far behind either and they arguably robbed each other of some titles. If we aren't going to do eras, and we don't agree that Viktor Barna is clearly the GOAT, then something doesn't add up.

 

[NDH]

There are people who would argue that Sampras is the greatest ever with some justification and he was clearly the greatest player of his era and probably of any era.

Ooooo juicy......

This is now entirely off topic, so if @UpSideDownCarl wanted to syphon it off into its own topic.... Feel free.

I feel people who would argue for Sampras as the greatest ever are those who have been biased by the fact they grew up with him dominating the sport.

I personally feel there is more to the conversation around "GOAT" than just hard statistics (in all sports), but at the same time, statistics are going to play a major role in the conversation.

I would agree that Sampras was the greatest of his era.

However, I think that era was pretty poor in the grand scheme of things, with not a huge amount of depth and aside from Agassi..... No real "hall of famers" to challenge him.

I would love to know what your arguments are (or what you feel other people's arguments are) to justify Sampras as the greatest ever?

 

[NextLevel]

Ooooo juicy......

This is now entirely off topic, so if @UpSideDownCarl wanted to syphon it off into its own topic.... Feel free.

I feel people who would argue for Sampras as the greatest ever are those who have been biased by the fact they grew up with him dominating the sport.

I personally feel there is more to the conversation around "GOAT" than just hard statistics (in all sports), but at the same time, statistics are going to play a major role in the conversation.

I would agree that Sampras was the greatest of his era.

However, I think that era was pretty poor in the grand scheme of things, with not a huge amount of depth and aside from Agassi..... No real "hall of famers" to challenge him.

I would love to know what your arguments are (or what you feel other people's arguments are) to justify Sampras as the greatest ever?

The depth argument is reasonable but the issue that had made it easier for Novak, Roger and Rafa and to a lesser degree Murray to coexist is the equipment changes that have brought in Luxillon strings, the standardization of bounces across many different surfaces, especially the changes to grass after the Ivanisevic victory to make it easier to rally on, and the use of balls that enable similar play.

Sampras was far ahead of his era and the lack of competition is as much a testament to his discipline and longevity. After all, it is not like he wouldn't have coexisted with Becker, Agassi, Chang, Courier if those guys had held their ends of the bargain. But the surfaces were so different that it took a lot more out if you tried to compete on all surfaces. Agassi's baseline style translated the best. I suspect that had Sampras tried more seriously to win the French when he was younger, he would have more titles. But the whole grand slam thing didnt have the same meaning when he played and no one foresaw the changes that would be made to encourage rallies at Wimbledon. But as a pure athlete, Sampras was Federer level, would be great in any era. But if Wimbledon was more like it was today (bigger and slower balls, higher bouncing grass, apinnier rackets), Sampras would have adjusted his game to fit. It is just knowing about Sampras as a pure athlete and competitor that can help you put that in perspective.

 

[NDH]

The depth argument is reasonable but the issue that had made it easier for Novak, Roger and Rafa and to a lesser degree Murray to coexist is the equipment changes that have brought in Luxillon strings, the standardization of bounces across many different surfaces, especially the changes to grass after the Ivanisevic victory to make it easier to rally on, and the use of balls that enable similar play.

Sampras was far ahead of his era and the lack of competition is as much a testament to his discipline and longevity. After all, it is not like he wouldn't have coexisted with Becker, Agassi, Chang, Courier if those guys had held their ends of the bargain. But the surfaces were so different that it took a lot more out if you tried to compete on all surfaces. Agassi's baseline style translated the best. I suspect that had Sampras tried more seriously to win the French when he was younger, he would have more titles. But the whole grand slam thing didnt have the same meaning when he played and no one foresaw the changes that would be made to encourage rallies at Wimbledon. But as a pure athlete, Sampras was Federer level, would be great in any era. But if Wimbledon was more like it was today (bigger and slower balls, higher bouncing grass, apinnier rackets), Sampras would have adjusted his game to fit. It is just knowing about Sampras as a pure athlete and competitor that can help you put that in perspective.

Ah, but you are now dipping into the pure love of Sampras, rather than any tangible argument (don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the GOAT argument in any sport has plenty of this!)

Regarding the first part of your comment, I would argue that the availability and change to the equipment makes it even more difficult to achieve greatness.

The fact that the big 3 (plus Murray) achieved what they did (across 20 years) is even more impressive given the sheer depth of the men’s game.

Do you really think Sampras is mixing it with those guys for 20 years? I have my doubts.

I think Sampras would have been a Murray.

Lots of titles, grand slam wins, always at the later stages of tournaments, but not in the same conversation as Nadal, Fed and Joker.

It’s so hard to compare era’s though.

So many little caveats come up which are open to opinion.

The professionalism/nutrition is one that is often thrown around.

“If Sampras (and others) had the same level of knowledge/analysis on things like nutrition, technique, coaching feedback etc etc”

But, all of that aside…. I just don’t think Sampras will be part of the conversation in 100 years time as Stats/records will play such a big part.

 

[NextLevel]

Ah, but you are now dipping into the pure love of Sampras, rather than any tangible argument (don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the GOAT argument in any sport has plenty of this!)

Regarding the first part of your comment, I would argue that the availability and change to the equipment makes it even more difficult to achieve greatness.

The fact that the big 3 (plus Murray) achieved what they did (across 20 years) is even more impressive given the sheer depth of the men’s game.

Do you really think Sampras is mixing it with those guys for 20 years? I have my doubts.

I think Sampras would have been a Murray.

Lots of titles, grand slam wins, always at the later stages of tournaments, but not in the same conversation as Nadal, Fed and Joker.

It’s so hard to compare era’s though.

So many little caveats come up which are open to opinion.

The professionalism/nutrition is one that is often thrown around.

“If Sampras (and others) had the same level of knowledge/analysis on things like nutrition, technique, coaching feedback etc etc”

But, all of that aside…. I just don’t think Sampras will be part of the conversation in 100 years time as Stats/records will play such a big part.

Yes, my point is that people who use statistics (and as someone whose jobs are primarily actuarial and analytic, I can discuss this intelligently) are limited in their ability to handle changes in environment. Does a statistician know that Seles got stabbed? Can a statistician adjust for the rule changes and equipment changes? Can a statistician adjust for Bjorg hating to travel to Australia?

It takes some ability to understand the limitations of purely using statistics to see how performance translates across eras. Anyone who says that the greatest player in his era has no claim to being the greatest of all time says they have a incontrovertible method of weighting change. There was a legitimate reason why players like Lendl and Sampras struggled with the transition between clay and grass. Then they make the surfaces more similar and we have more players doing well in both events using the same style and we then incontrovertibly say the stats have the answer.

Alrighty then. I have no problem with Djokovic being the greatest of all time as long as that comparison or claim is given context. But one should always know the context in which achievements were made if one is being truly scientific. I find that statisticians often want to wish that context away.

 

[NDH]

Yes, my point is that people who use statistics (and as someone whose jobs are primarily actuarial and analytic, I can discuss this intelligently) are limited in their ability to handle changes in environment. Does a statistician know that Seles got stabbed? Can a statistician adjust for the rule changes and equipment changes? Can a statistician adjust for Bjorg hating to travel to Australia?

It takes some ability to understand the limitations of purely using statistics to see how performance translates across eras. Anyone who says that the greatest player in his era has no claim to being the greatest of all time says they have a incontrovertible method of weighting change. There was a legitimate reason why players like Lendl and Sampras struggled with the transition between clay and grass. Then they make the surfaces more similar and we have more players doing well in both events using the same style and we then incontrovertibly say the stats have the answer.

Alrighty then. I have no problem with Djokovic being the greatest of all time as long as that comparison or claim is given context. But one should always know the context in which achievements were made if one is being truly scientific. I find that statisticians often want to wish that context away.

I agree - But I also find that people who don’t use statistics (especially when the stats go against their argument), will often come up with hypothetical scenarios and “gut feeling”.

For what it’s worth, I sit in the middle, and I know I’m biased.

For me, Federer is the greatest there has ever been.

His elegance, watchability, flair, persona - Everything about him was world class.

If he’d switched to the 97 racket earlier, he arguably would have had more grand slams as well (but that’s just a cheeky hypothetical).

Djokovic will be never be the greatest (for me), despite the stats almost certainly supporting his argument when his career is over.

Why? He’s boring. His game is just so robotic, and whilst I massively admire what he has achieved, I don’t look forward to watching his games.

The great thing about the GOAT argument is that “feel” does come into it.

And with that, it’s impossible to shoot someone else’s opinion down!

 

[NextLevel]

I agree - But I also find that people who don’t use statistics (especially when the stats go against their argument), will often come up with hypothetical scenarios and “gut feeling”.

For what it’s worth, I sit in the middle, and I know I’m biased.

For me, Federer is the greatest there has ever been.

His elegance, watchability, flair, persona - Everything about him was world class.

If he’d switched to the 97 racket earlier, he arguably would have had more grand slams as well (but that’s just a cheeky hypothetical).

Djokovic will be never be the greatest (for me), despite the stats almost certainly supporting his argument when his career is over.

Why? He’s boring. His game is just so robotic, and whilst I massively admire what he has achieved, I don’t look forward to watching his games.

The great thing about the GOAT argument is that “feel” does come into it.

And with that, it’s impossible to shoot someone else’s opinion down!

I think Federer's problems in the GOAT argument are significant - Djokovic and Nadal have serious head to head advantages and also more slams and also more broad to head victories at critical moments. I don't understand the robotic comment as much as I understand that Fed can have a pretty looking game but there are no beauty points in tennis Moreover I find the athleticism displayed by any of the big 4 and Alcaraz as well to be incredibly impressive.

In any case, my main point still stands and it is not purely subjective but about how to handle significant changes in equipment and rules and surfaces across eras, changes that affect many players. It's not a trivial thing. That's why keeping the analysis within an era at least encourages the comparison of like with like. It's interesting that you like stats so much but are still willing to give the GOAT title to someone who largely dominated an era where he lacked competition, and largely stopped winning when his competitors came of age. How Federer lost that last Wimbledon final to Djokovic is still a puzzle.

 

[NDH]

I think Federer's problems in the GOAT argument are significant - Djokovic and Nadal have serious head to head advantages and also more slams and also more broad to head victories at critical moments. I don't understand the robotic comment as much as I understand that Fed can have a pretty looking game but there are no beauty points in tennis Moreover I find the athleticism displayed by any of the big 4 and Alcaraz as well to be incredibly impressive.

In any case, my main point still stands and it is not purely subjective but about how to handle significant changes in equipment and rules and surfaces across eras, changes that affect many players. It's not a trivial thing. That's why keeping the analysis within an era at least encourages the comparison of like with like. It's interesting that you like stats so much but are still willing to give the GOAT title to someone who largely dominated an era where he lacked competition, and largely stopped winning when his competitors came of age. How Federer lost that last Wimbledon final to Djokovic is still a puzzle.

It’s not that I like stats. I’m relatively indifferent towards them in the GOAT argument.

At the same time, you can’t simply dismiss them altogether. There may be caveats (longevity or play, competition in era, rule changes etc) that will impact the stats, but they will play a certain part in the argument.

Emotion plays a part as well, hence Federer rules the roost for me.

His achievements (whilst statistically not being the best), along with the way he approached the game on and off the court put him at the top of the tree for me.

But I’d 100% accept the argument for Djokovic as well - Just because I don’t like the player, doesn’t mean I can’t respect what he’s done in the sport.

I also love Nadal, but he falls behind Fed for me, despite (as you said) having better stats.

Unless there is a big reason (you mentioned Monica Seles for example), stats have to play their part in the GOAT conversation, otherwise it simply comes down to who your favourite player is.

That usually rules out newish players (Alcaraz for example), because he simply hasn’t had the longevity to be considered the GOAT yet.

With the Seles issues (where an exterior factor cut the career short), I think you can always mention them in the conversation, but very rarely (if ever) can they be considered the GOAT, again, due to longevity of career.

A lot of people have proved to be the best across a year or two in many different sports, but it’s the consistency that takes them from the best at that time, to GOAT status.