WTT Champions Frankfurt 2024

[ThePongCommenter]

I look fwd to being at the arena on Thursday/Friday so you can tell me how all those exciting 3-1 matches I watched were actually just dead rubbers! 😂
Anyway man, this is flogged this to death.
We don't agree on Gauzy.

No clue what this means or who said anything about dead rubbers but enjoy the matches.

 

[NetProphet]

Your entire contribution to this thread is that a "results almanac" in fact exists for these matches where Gauzy threatened top players but came up just short all throughout his career not just last night against Felix, yet you are the one getting defensive when people ask you to provide said results almanac.

No. I don't feel that I HAVE to provide it because I'm not interested to try and prove that a feeling I've had when many times watching Gauzy is well summed up by line dropped in here last night by Turbozed. And it would take bloody ages to find the games. If it meant more to me maybe I could be bothered....
What I laugh at is how incredulous you seem that I could dare to disagree with you or Nextlevel.
You guys never had the feeling that Gauzy was a threat? Fair enough. No problem.
But watching him over the years he's had many nights like last night, in my eyes.
It's why I was so delighted when he got his team Bronze at the Olympics, after so much flattering to deceive he finally got a medal.

 

[FIXPOINT]

WTT Champions Frankfurt 2024WS R32 Day2

 

[FIXPOINT]

WTT Champions Frankfurt 2024MS R32 Day2

 

[turbozed]

Again, as a career description, as opposed to the last one year or so (which even then requires selective memory), can you please substantiate your claim with said matches, or just agree that it is okay for people who disagree to also have a reasonable case?

You and @ThePongCommenter are moving the goalposts a little bit. The original statement that people agreed with was that it applied to "much" of Gauzy's career. And you guys are arguing that it has to apply to the entirety of his career.

Now the vagueness of the word "much" can cause confusion here since people who are just remembering recent history can argue that a few years of similar results qualifies. And you two can say that it's unfair to define a career like that, and set some arbitrary portion (e.g. a majority of his career) that it should apply to.

The only thing that can be said about this confusion is that the original comment was absolutely not about the entirety, so demanding evidence to span his whole career is not a fair counter based on plain language alone.

While you're right to point out that a lot of recent matches fly under the radar and don't suit the narrative, that doesn't negate the fact that there were a few very memorable instances (which @Tony's Table Tennis listed) that left people with that impression.

Now whether it's fair or not to weigh higher profile matches more heavily in considering a person's career, that's an issue that strays into overall myth-making inherent in all sports. For the general public that doesn't follow every single event and match, a player is often judged only by high profile matches. People often categorize single data points in sports as 'career-defining' when they are more public and visible. In this sense, it's not inaccurate to simply point out when a narrative exists, regardless of whether it's justified or unfair.

 

[turbozed]

Anyways, what a crazy match between A. Lebrun and LYJ. The rallies in the last few games were completely insane as Lebrun decided he needed to play far from the table to get an advantage.

Really looked like Alexis had the momentum and was going to pull off the reverse sweep. I really wonder how emotionally drained the Lebruns must be after the second half of this year, from preparing to Olympics to the big event in Montpelier and becoming the focus of media attention all the while. I guess for some it could be energizing, but I'd imagine there has to be a crash from the highs of it at some point.

 

[ThePongCommenter]

You and @ThePongCommenter are moving the goalposts a little bit. The original statement that people agreed with was that it applied to "much" of Gauzy's career. And you guys are arguing that it has to apply to the entirety of his career.

Gauzy has had a 17 year career, 5 of it in juniors and about 12 of it as an adult. Let's not act like "Much of his career" is a vague term or like two (2023-2024) out of 17 years qualifies for "much of" by any reasonable definition. It is not moving the goalposts when that is the timeframe that you introduced in your original comment.

Perhaps if you said "much of Gauzy's recent history" or something along those lines then this discussion probably wouldn't be happening but it seems like we are on the same page at this point.

Now the vagueness of the word "much" can cause confusion here since people who are just remembering recent history can argue that a few years of similar results qualifies.

That is the literal textbook definition of recency bias.

While you're right to point out that a lot of recent matches fly under the radar and don't suit the narrative, that doesn't negate the fact that there were a few very memorable instances (which @Tony's Table Tennis listed) that left people with that impression.

Now whether it's fair or not to weigh higher profile matches more heavily in considering a person's career, that's an issue that strays into overall myth-making inherent in all sports. For the general public that doesn't follow every single event and match, a player is often judged only by high profile matches. People often categorize single data points in sports as 'career-defining' when they are more public and visible. In this sense, it's not inaccurate to simply point out when a narrative exists, regardless of whether it's justified or unfair.

Very true. Lin Gaoyuan will probably always be seen as a choker for the reason you said above. If we want to talk more about the "memorable instances" - yes, he has raised his level and pushed LJK to the brink two times recently, losing by the closest of margins. The Hugo match in Xinxiang was a good fight as well. I don't think anybody is debating that in the last year or two Gauzy has had some close and memorable losses. As for some of the other examples listed I didn't consider them close losses but if there are more examples I'm missing please fill me in. Until then I am not sure that 3 2-3 losses in a one year span is really outside the normal but as you said if its what people remember then it is what they remember.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

I wonder why pong commenter needs to remove points from here??

2023

WTT Contender, Amman (JOR)

Main Draw

MS

R32

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

OVTCHAROV Dimitrij (GER)

0 - 3

OVTCHAROV Dimitrij

2022	WTT Contender, Lima (PER)	Main Draw	MS		QuarterFinal	GAUZY Simon (FRA)	OVTCHAROV Dimitrij (GER)		1 - 3	OVTCHAROV Dimitrij
2017	Men's World Cup, Liege (BEL)	Main Draw	MS		SemiFinal	GAUZY Simon (FRA)	OVTCHAROV Dimitrij (GER)		3 - 4	OVTCHAROV Dimitrij
2017	ITTF Europe Cup, Antibes (FRA)	Qualification	MS	1		GAUZY Simon (FRA)	OVTCHAROV Dimitrij (GER)		2 - 3	OVTCHAROV Dimitrij
2016	ITTF Europe Top 16 Cup, Gondomar (POR)	Qualification	MS	1		GAUZY Simon (FRA)	OVTCHAROV Dimitrij (GER)		0 - 3	OVTCHAROV Dimitrij
2015	ITTF European Table Tennis Championships, Ekaterinburg (RUS)	Main Draw	MT			GAUZY Simon (FRA)	OVTCHAROV Dimitrij (GER)		0 - 3	OVTCHAROV Dimitrij
2015	ITTF Europe Top 16 Cup, Baku (AZE)	Qualification	MS	1		GAUZY Simon (FRA)	OVTCHAROV Dimitrij (GER)		1 - 3	OVTCHAROV Dimitrij
2014	World Tour, Russian Open, Ekaterinburg (RUS)	Main Draw	MS		R32	GAUZY Simon (FRA)	OVTCHAROV Dimitrij (GER)		2 - 4	OVTCHAROV Dimitrij

2019

ITTF European Championships, Nantes (FRA)

Main Draw

MT

SemiFinal

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

BOLL Timo (GER)

1 - 3

BOLL Timo

2017	World Tour, German Open, Magdeburg (GER)	Main Draw	MS		R16	GAUZY Simon (FRA)	BOLL Timo (GER)		1 - 4	BOLL Timo
2017	ITTF Europe Cup, Antibes (FRA)	Main Draw	MS		QuarterFinal	GAUZY Simon (FRA)	BOLL Timo (GER)		4 - 2	GAUZY Simon
2016	ITTF European Championships, Budapest (HUN)	Main Draw	MS		SemiFinal	GAUZY Simon (FRA)	BOLL Timo (GER)		4 - 1	GAUZY Simon
2016	World Team Table Tennis Championships, Kuala Lumpur (MAS)	Qualification	MT			GAUZY Simon (FRA)	BOLL Timo (GER)		3 - 2	GAUZY Simon

Fared well against Boll prior to his late career resurgence, owned by Ovtcharov.

 

[ThePongCommenter]

I wonder why pong commenter needs to remove points from here??

I didn't remove it lmfao. And I wouldn't need to when it's a wall full of losses.

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

Can you please list this long list of close calls that Gauzy has supposedly had throughout his career, especially against Chinese opposition?

firstly, I said top 10 players, your friend that you are supporting is the one said he can't compete against Chinese players.
somehow, that is fake news too.

so here goes

2021

Olympic Games, Tokyo (JPN)

FAN Zhendong (CHN)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

MT

Main Draw

QuarterFinal

3 - 2

10:12 12:10 8:11 11:5 11:7

FAN Zhendong

2020

ITTF World Tour Platinum Qatar Open, Doha (QAT)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

XU Xin (CHN)

MS

Main Draw

QuarterFinal

3 - 4

11:6 6:11 11:8 8:11 6:11 11:8 7:11

XU Xin

2019

Men's World Cup, Chengdu (CHN)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

MA Long (CHN)

MS

Main Draw

R16

2 - 4

7:11 8:11 11:9 5:11 11:8 13:15

MA Long

2019

ITTF World Tour Swedish Open, Stockholm (SWE)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

FAN Zhendong (CHN)

MS

Main Draw

QuarterFinal

0 - 4

8:11 8:11 9:11 9:11

FAN Zhendong

2019

ITTF World Tour Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong (HKG)

WANG Chuqin (CHN)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

MS

Main Draw

R16

4 - 1

12:10 9:11 11:8 16:14 11:5

WANG Chuqin

2019

World Table Tennis Championships, Budapest (HUN)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

XU Xin (CHN)

MS

Main Draw

R32

4 - 2

11:8 6:11 11:13 11:6 11:9 11:9

GAUZY Simon

2018

World Tour, German Open, Bremen (GER)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

XU Xin (CHN)

MS

Main Draw

QuarterFinal

2 - 4

12:10 11:9 5:11 10:12 3:11 7:11

XU Xin

2017

Men's World Cup, Liege (BEL)

MA Long (CHN)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

MS

Position Draw

2

4 - 2

11:5 11:13 6:11 11:5 11:7 11:9

MA Long

prior to 2016, Gauzy hasn't have good results, he only broke into top 50 in 2015 for example.

since you guys talk about definition of career
why don't you also comment on definition of can't compete with Chinese (I use only top 10 chinese, since he beaten non top 10 chinese).

is can't compete means, loosing every game under 5, or under 7, or under 9??

Gauzy was never a top candidate European except for the 4 months he broke into the top 10.

throughout the list, there are also close matches against top 10 that you welcome to go check yourself.
Just don't remove points if you want to post it here.

you don't push Ma Long or top 3 Chinese in the old days. Take games off them is not the norm in 2017 for example. however that is the height of Gauzy's career in terms of road ranking and since his peak in 2017, he has been in the 20 or out. On the out, he still challenges them in 2018, 2019 for example.
and what I am saying is, if those close matches becomes wins, maybe, just maybe, we will have a different Gauzy today and with a prettier track record

PS. I kept point scores for reference. Since that is what close defines when I say , just short of that 1 point to win games and 1 games to win matches

 

[Tony's Table Tennis]

"Simon Gauzy tests much higher rated opponent while making highlight reel shots but utlimately loses a close match"

Seems like a consistent headline for much of Gauzy's career it seems.

This is the comment that started everything lol.

The one that you disagree with
And then said he can’t compete with Chinese

This is no different than zeio retirement of players that cant beat chinese players.

I showed evidence gauzy can compete. It was not a thrashing walk over.

There is a reason why Gauzy isnt top 10, and it is clear he is good enough, but just can’t close the games or matches. Probably the most consistent top 30 player with this problem.

What is there to argue against?
Chinese players beating him 11-3 and 3-0/4-0 every time??

The point scores, game wins shows this clearly, especially from his peak till today. Or you want to argue career is from 13 years old?? Fine, you win if you want to start from day 1. But i though cant compete is chinese players will beat him 11-1 😂

 

[ThePongCommenter]

This is no different than zeio retirement of players that cant beat chinese players.

It is very different. Let's not be dramatic. I'm not calling for anybody's retirement nor discrediting Gauzy being a great player.

There is a reason why Gauzy isnt top 10, and it is clear he is good enough, but just can’t close the games or matches.

That by definition....is not being good enough to win You seem to consider taking a few games here and there, and keeping some games close, to be the definition of being close to winning. I don't. We probably just won't agree and that's fine. I'll go back to my earlier question - would you say it is accurate that Groth, Pitchford, Achanta, Manush Shah, El-Beiali, Gnanasekaran, are all players that were good enough to beat LYJ this year but just fell short of closing it out? I wouldn't, but those are all players who took games off of him this year and/or had games decided by 2 point margins.

 

[NextLevel]

You and @ThePongCommenter are moving the goalposts a little bit. The original statement that people agreed with was that it applied to "much" of Gauzy's career. And you guys are arguing that it has to apply to the entirety of his career.

Now the vagueness of the word "much" can cause confusion here since people who are just remembering recent history can argue that a few years of similar results qualifies. And you two can say that it's unfair to define a career like that, and set some arbitrary portion (e.g. a majority of his career) that it should apply to.

The only thing that can be said about this confusion is that the original comment was absolutely not about the entirety, so demanding evidence to span his whole career is not a fair counter based on plain language alone.

While you're right to point out that a lot of recent matches fly under the radar and don't suit the narrative, that doesn't negate the fact that there were a few very memorable instances (which @Tony's Table Tennis listed) that left people with that impression.

Now whether it's fair or not to weigh higher profile matches more heavily in considering a person's career, that's an issue that strays into overall myth-making inherent in all sports. For the general public that doesn't follow every single event and match, a player is often judged only by high profile matches. People often categorize single data points in sports as 'career-defining' when they are more public and visible. In this sense, it's not inaccurate to simply point out when a narrative exists, regardless of whether it's justified or unfair.

I haven't read the part of the thread where you reviewed most of Gauzy's career. Like I said, Gauzy was a junior when I started playing TT seriously so I am familiar with most of his career, including watching marches when he played the WJTTC. So I am still waiting to understand their matches he displayed high level and was winning but ultimately lost in many parts of his career. Especially when for the most part, he has performed at his ranking level for most of his career. I still consider him largely a top 20 player.

 

[NextLevel]

No. I don't feel that I HAVE to provide it because I'm not interested to try and prove that a feeling I've had when many times watching Gauzy is well summed up by line dropped in here last night by Turbozed. And it would take bloody ages to find the games. If it meant more to me maybe I could be bothered....
What I laugh at is how incredulous you seem that I could dare to disagree with you or Nextlevel.
You guys never had the feeling that Gauzy was a threat? Fair enough. No problem.
But watching him over the years he's had many nights like last night, in my eyes.
It's why I was so delighted when he got his team Bronze at the Olympics, after so much flattering to deceive he finally got a medal.

At a certain point, people will believe whatever they want to believe even when they have no evidence to explain why they believe it.

 

[NextLevel]

The one that you disagree with
And then said he can’t compete with Chinese

This is no different than zeio retirement of players that cant beat chinese players.

I showed evidence gauzy can compete. It was not a thrashing walk over.

There is a reason why Gauzy isnt top 10, and it is clear he is good enough, but just can’t close the games or matches. Probably the most consistent top 30 player with this problem.

What is there to argue against?
Chinese players beating him 11-3 and 3-0/4-0 every time??

The point scores, game wins shows this clearly, especially from his peak till today. Or you want to argue career is from 13 years old?? Fine, you win if you want to start from day 1. But i though cant compete is chinese players will beat him 11-1 😂

Let's apply your logic to other top European players like Anton Kallberg or Qiu Dang or Darko Jorgic or Anders Lind. If Gauzy was #1 or #2 in France, why would he be very different from them?

What about Kiril? Again other than a few spectacular losses in recent months, what makes Gauzy's career more tragic than Kiril? Why would Gauzy be top 10 and not any of the other players?

 

[turbozed]

I haven't read the part of the thread where you reviewed most of Gauzy's career. Like I said, Gauzy was a junior when I started playing TT seriously so I am familiar with most of his career, including watching marches when he played the WJTTC. So I am still waiting to understand their matches he displayed high level and was winning but ultimately lost in many parts of his career. Especially when for the most part, he has performed at his ranking level for most of his career. I still consider him largely a top 20 player.

You didn't address the point of the post where I pointed out that youw ere moving the goalposts about being about Gauzy's entire career rather than "much." Now you're changing it to "most" which is still not accurate.

Also, now you're changing the goalposts from 'ultimately losing close games' to 'was winning but ultimately lost.' I know you're smart enough to be accutely aware that these are subtle but important differences, so I'm wondering why you're uncharacteristically being extremely cagey in how you're approaching this conversation.

You're right that you know Gauzy's career way better than I do, but I can identify intellectual dishonesty pretty easily, and you're seriously lacking in this department in this thread.

 

[turbozed]

Gauzy has had a 17 year career, 5 of it in juniors and about 12 of it as an adult. Let's not act like "Much of his career" is a vague term or like two (2023-2024) out of 17 years qualifies for "much of" by any reasonable definition. It is not moving the goalposts when that is the timeframe that you introduced in your original comment.

Perhaps if you said "much of Gauzy's recent history" or something along those lines then this discussion probably wouldn't be happening but it seems like we are on the same page at this point.



That is the literal textbook definition of recency bias.




Very true. Lin Gaoyuan will probably always be seen as a choker for the reason you said above. If we want to talk more about the "memorable instances" - yes, he has raised his level and pushed LJK to the brink two times recently, losing by the closest of margins. The Hugo match in Xinxiang was a good fight as well. I don't think anybody is debating that in the last year or two Gauzy has had some close and memorable losses. As for some of the other examples listed I didn't consider them close losses but if there are more examples I'm missing please fill me in. Until then I am not sure that 3 2-3 losses in a one year span is really outside the normal but as you said if its what people remember then it is what they remember.

I acknowleged that you might have disagreements of what "much" means. You're free to have your own interpretation, but I think it's a bit presumptious to think you're the arbiter on the definition of words. In any case, it's not a conversation I think is worth having.

You, the @ThePongCommenter doesn't believe that a recent trend shouldn't qualify as "much." Thank you for clarifying.

 

[NextLevel]

firstly, I said top 10 players, your friend that you are supporting is the one said he can't compete against Chinese players.
somehow, that is fake news too.

so here goes

2021

Olympic Games, Tokyo (JPN)

FAN Zhendong (CHN)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

MT

Main Draw

QuarterFinal

3 - 2

10:12 12:10 8:11 11:5 11:7

FAN Zhendong

2020

ITTF World Tour Platinum Qatar Open, Doha (QAT)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

XU Xin (CHN)

MS

Main Draw

QuarterFinal

3 - 4

11:6 6:11 11:8 8:11 6:11 11:8 7:11

XU Xin

2019

Men's World Cup, Chengdu (CHN)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

MA Long (CHN)

MS

Main Draw

R16

2 - 4

7:11 8:11 11:9 5:11 11:8 13:15

MA Long

2019

ITTF World Tour Swedish Open, Stockholm (SWE)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

FAN Zhendong (CHN)

MS

Main Draw

QuarterFinal

0 - 4

8:11 8:11 9:11 9:11

FAN Zhendong

2019

ITTF World Tour Hong Kong Open, Hong Kong (HKG)

WANG Chuqin (CHN)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

MS

Main Draw

R16

4 - 1

12:10 9:11 11:8 16:14 11:5

WANG Chuqin

2019

World Table Tennis Championships, Budapest (HUN)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

XU Xin (CHN)

MS

Main Draw

R32

4 - 2

11:8 6:11 11:13 11:6 11:9 11:9

GAUZY Simon

2018

World Tour, German Open, Bremen (GER)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

XU Xin (CHN)

MS

Main Draw

QuarterFinal

2 - 4

12:10 11:9 5:11 10:12 3:11 7:11

XU Xin

2017

Men's World Cup, Liege (BEL)

MA Long (CHN)

GAUZY Simon (FRA)

MS

Position Draw

2

4 - 2

11:5 11:13 6:11 11:5 11:7 11:9

MA Long

prior to 2016, Gauzy hasn't have good results, he only broke into top 50 in 2015 for example.

since you guys talk about definition of career
why don't you also comment on definition of can't compete with Chinese (I use only top 10 chinese, since he beaten non top 10 chinese).

is can't compete means, loosing every game under 5, or under 7, or under 9??

Gauzy was never a top candidate European except for the 4 months he broke into the top 10.

throughout the list, there are also close matches against top 10 that you welcome to go check yourself.
Just don't remove points if you want to post it here.

you don't push Ma Long or top 3 Chinese in the old days. Take games off them is not the norm in 2017 for example. however that is the height of Gauzy's career in terms of road ranking and since his peak in 2017, he has been in the 20 or out. On the out, he still challenges them in 2018, 2019 for example.
and what I am saying is, if those close matches becomes wins, maybe, just maybe, we will have a different Gauzy today and with a prettier track record

PS. I kept point scores for reference. Since that is what close defines when I say , just short of that 1 point to win games and 1 games to win matches

I watched many of those matches. Honestly, Gauzy had the same experience many players had playing the Chinese.Koki Niwa, Lee Sang Su. The old elo system made it easier to rank and measure strength. Gauzy is nit a specially tragic figure in the era of Chinese domination. That the Lebruns have pushed him back further is unfortunate but it has also given him a medal. But I do not remember any of these matches as evidence Gauzy was something other than who he is. His play in the last two years has been impressive but he is now playing behind better players.

 

[ThePongCommenter]

I acknowleged that you might have disagreements of what "much" means. You're free to have your own interpretation, but I think it's a bit presumptious to think you're the arbiter on the definition of words. In any case, it's not a conversation I think is worth having.

You, the @ThePongCommenter doesn't believe that a recent trend shouldn't qualify as "much." Thank you for clarifying.

Correct. That is in line with the definition of "much" according to the actual "arbiter of words" aka the dictionary. Do you not acknowledge it would have been better worded to just say it is a recent trend?

 

[NextLevel]

I acknowleged that you might have disagreements of what "much" means. You're free to have your own interpretation, but I think it's a bit presumptious to think you're the arbiter on the definition of words. In any case, it's not a conversation I think is worth having.

You, the @ThePongCommenter doesn't believe that a recent trend shouldn't qualify as "much." Thank you for clarifying.

So Gauzy is 29 or so, maybe 30. He was a WJTTC top prospect in 2011 . He was at the top of Europe un 2016/2017. How do you define much of his career?