NextLevel's Thoughts on Table Tennis: I like to write about Table Tennis

[DrBean]

Yes. As in any other sport If you are winning by 2-3 points, then sure, that would be a 'lesser' type of loss since it is close and 2 point lead in modern table tennis is not THAT much. Losing a set you were winning 10-7 or 10-8 would be probably attributed as momentary lapse of concentration, opponent finding one last spark, etc. But that 10-4 blown lead against Timo Boll...come on,man. Textbook choking.

Yeah or snatching defeat from the jaws of victory up 3-0, though there’s no shame in losing to Ma Long. That man is like the textbook definition of choking lmao.

Just so we end this argument, thank you for the debate and showing me your point of view

No argument mate, just exchange of ideas 🙇 you made me think on my position as well.

 

[DrBean]

You both have valid points, the main point is that trying to compare across eras always involves assumptions that are often questionable. If a player like Liu Guoliang had to retire soon after the rule changes that hurt his weapons, it begs th question of what it means to be great bedroom and after the rule changes. Because a few players were at the top in both eras, it is treated somewhat seamlessly but it wasn't completely so. Then it becomes a choice and your subjective 80% comparable.mighr be 20% to someone else. That's the point. And I think it can go either way depending on one's mood to argue the question.

I mean that you can obscure your serve was an option to everyone. He made use of it, he was within the rules, he excelled at it, and was shrewd enough to bounce and wreck havoc on the national team as a white collar criminal (so the memes go).

But MY point is, everyone played with in the same sandbox, and the best fit rose to the top. That’s the 80%, thats the spacetime you exist in to no fault of your own. If you’re comparing someone to their peers there’s no assumptions to be made. The other 20% is the “he played in weak era” etc.

 

[NextLevel]

I mean that you can obscure your serve was an option to everyone. He made use of it, he was within the rules, he excelled at it, and was shrewd enough to bounce and wreck havoc on the national team as a white collar criminal (so the memes go).

But MY point is, everyone played with in the same sandbox, and the best fit rose to the top. That’s the 80%, thats the spacetime you exist in to no fault of your own. If you’re comparing someone to their peers there’s no assumptions to be made. The other 20% is the “he played in weak era” etc.

Thanks. For someone who confesses to not watching a lot of table tennis, you sure have a lot of strong opinions about it. They didn't just change the rules on serving, they also made the main rubber he used on his forehand illegal.

You sound like the analysts in tennis who pretend that changing the balls and the surfaces so that the grand slams played more similarly to each other can be ignored in assessing how great Sampras was when compared to Novak etc. Such subtleties don't matter, just do the math. So should the evolution of string and racket technology.

My point is I have accepted you can do that, but it doesnt get you what you want because the eras are still different and the differences dont go away in their impact on specific and all talents of the era just because they are inconvenient for your argument. The 80% is just a number you claim how do you calculate it? If you can't show your math in excruciating detail and explain how It applies in the example of Liu Guoliang, I will accept and move. If not, lets stop this scientific precision and accept that ultimately, you are just setting up your arguments based on different premises and that is entirely okay to the degree others find you persuasive. It's not like I haven't argued for your side of the issue before, but I also know that ultimately, it does a huge disservice to specific players.

 

[NextLevel]

Yes. As in any other sport If you are winning by 2-3 points, then sure, that would be a 'lesser' type of loss since it is close and 2 point lead in modern table tennis is not THAT much. Losing a set you were winning 10-7 or 10-8 would be probably attributed as momentary lapse of concentration, opponent finding one last spark, etc. But that 10-4 blown lead against Timo Boll...come on,man. Textbook choking.

Who was the better player in almost every instance where Lin Gaoyuan choked? Well I guess i have to finish it sometime.

 

[Der_Echte]

The GOAT discussion is useless overidolization anyway. There's good players, even great players, but they all lose from time to time, and sometimes more against specific people.
Trying to simplify the complexity of the summit of a sport like table tennis into a term like GOAT is essentially a form of disrespect for the sport itself.
But there's one thing these so called GOAT candidates have in common: they have a very good, consistent high level with only few slip-ups.

What I'm trying to say, writing about your idea of the GOAT probably won't appeal much to me. It's a very personal opinion.

@Tyce totally keeping it REAL... WHO is ur daddy he sez.

Great epic stuff.

 

[Der_Echte]

@NextLevel causing moar trouble than carl or Der_Echte ever did.

Book and the prelim discussion is so damned good idea.