Archivename: tabletennis/3_gamemisc
Version: 12.0 See reader questions & answers on this topic!  Help others by sharing your knowledge rec.sport.tabletennis answers to Frequently Asked Questions and other news, posted monthly, now in mail folder digest format. New items preceded with +: Table of Contents: ================== 3.1. How long is a 11 pt game? 3.1.1 table "Probability of winning match" 3.2. What are Handicap Events? 3.2.1 How does USATT Rating system works? 3.2.2 What is the probablility of winning? 3.2.3 Handicap Charts 3.3. Canadian TTA to USATT rating conversion chart 3.4. Does it matter who serves first? 3.5. What is Speedglue? 3.5.1 First Press Release Statement on Speedglue Ban 3.5.2 What speedglue are ITTFapproved? 3.5.3 ITTF Ban 3.5.4 Fight the Glue Ban: ITTF vs TRUE + 3.6. ITTF/ETTU RANK list 3.6.1 MEN RANK [95FEB] 3.6.2 WOMEN RANK [94SEP] Send comments, suggestions, contributions, revisions and criticisms regarding this FAQ list via email to: ttennis@bu.edu From djmarcus@tasc.com Wed Feb 10 10:39:01 1993 Subject: 3.1 HOW LONG IS AN 11 POINT GAME? =========================================== Eleven points, of course. A more precise question: Is a 4 out of 7 match of 11 point games the same as a 2 out of 3 match of 21 point games? Why do we care? Over the last few years many tournaments both in the US and in other countries have experimented with 11 point games to see if they make the matches more exciting. Why don't you try such an event at your next tournament? The results can still count for rating points (check with the rating chairman for the current policy). How do we measure the length of a match other than simply counting the total points? The key is to realize that the length of a match is reflected in the probability that the better player will lose. The longer the match, the smaller the probability of an upset. Using standard modeling assumptions (probability of winning a point is independent of the score) we may relate the probability of winning a point to the probability of winning a match under various formats. For simplicity, we will assume the probability of winning a point does not depend on who serves. (It is possible to take into account the dependence on who is serving, but the conclusions remain the same.) The table gives the probabilities of winning a match under various formats. Each row of the table corresponds to a different format. For example, the first row is for one game to 11 points. The "Games" column gives the number of games you need to win the match, so "2" means a 2 out of 3 match. The last row, labeled "2 sets" is for the tennis format: Each game is to 4 points with deuce at 3, each set is to 6 games with deuce at 5, and the match is 2 out of 3 sets. I've used the old tennis format: no tiebreakers. Note that I've also included a format of one game to 51. This is a popular format for handicap matches. Each column gives the probability of winning the match for a different probability of winning a point. Note that the first column is the same for all formats because it corresponds to a probability of winning a point of 0.5. If the two players are evenly matched and the format is fair (and all these formats are), then the probability of winning the match is 0.5 regardless of the length. The larger the numbers in a given row, the longer the match. The rows are in order with the shortest format at the top and the longest format at the bottom. So what can we conclude? A normal 2 out of 3 match is half way between the 11 point game formats of 3 out of 5 and 4 out of 7. It is slightly closer to the 4 out of 7 format. A normal 3 out of 5 match is between the 11 point formats of 5 out of 9 and 6 out of 11, but is closer to the 5 out of 9. The 51 point game is almost the same as a normal 2 out of 3. And finally, the tennis format of 2 out of 3 sets is longer than all the other formats. From djmarcus@tasc.com Wed Feb 10 10:39:01 1993 Subject: 3.1.1 table PROBABILITY OF WINNING MATCH  Format  Probability of Winning Point Points Games  0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.60  11 1  0.50 0.58 0.65 0.72 0.78 0.84 21 1  0.50 0.60 0.70 0.79 0.86 0.91 11 2  0.50 0.61 0.72 0.81 0.88 0.93 11 3  0.50 0.64 0.77 0.86 0.93 0.97 21 2  0.50 0.65 0.79 0.88 0.94 0.98 51 1  0.50 0.66 0.79 0.89 0.95 0.98 11 4  0.50 0.66 0.80 0.90 0.96 0.98 11 5  0.50 0.68 0.83 0.92 0.97 0.99 21 3  0.50 0.69 0.84 0.93 0.98 0.99 11 6  0.50 0.70 0.85 0.94 0.98 1.00 2 sets  0.50 0.71 0.87 0.95 0.99 1.00  From djmarcus@tasc.com Wed Feb 10 10:38:58 1993 Subject: 3.2 WHAT ARE HANDICAP EVENTS? ======================================= Handicap events are a lot of fun. You get to play people you wouldn't ordinarily play and everyone has to play their best in every match. However, the key is a good handicap chart. Simple formulas such as four (or two) handicap points per hundred rating points (in a game to 21) are a start, but we should be able to do better. We will construct new handicap charts for both 21 point games and 51 point games. It is traditional for a handicap match to consist of one game to 51. The reason is that a large handicap in a 21 point game can force the players to drastically change their styles: the stronger player plays too conservatively since the weaker player only needs to win a few "lucky" points. Playing 2 out of 3 doesn't change this, but one game to 51 gives more room to maneuver. How do we construct a handicap chart? There are three steps: 1. We need some data from which we can estimate the probability that one player will defeat another player in a nonhandicap match. 2. Then we relate the probability of winning a nonhandicap match to the probability of winning each point. 3. Finally we calculate how many handicap points will make the handicap match fair. From djmarcus@tasc.com Wed Feb 10 10:38:58 1993 Subject: 3.2.1 HOW DOES USATT RATING SYSTEM WORKS?  Before discussing the data, let's discuss how the rating system works. This will make it easier to understand the data. The tournament director of each tournament sends all the results for the tournament to the USATT rating chairman Dan Simon. Dan processes the tournaments in the order they were played. After processing, he sends a report back to the tournament director that gives the new rating for each player who played in the tournament. So, you may get your new rating from the tournament director several weeks after the tournament. Here is the rating chart which gives the number of rating points that the winner of each match wins and the loser loses.  Rating  Higher rated  Lower rated difference  player wins  player wins  0 12  8  8 13 37  7  10 38 62  6  13 63 87  5  16 88112  4  20 113137  3  25 138162  2  30 163187  2  35 188212  1  40 213237  1  45 238  0  50  However, the calculation of the ratings involves more than just this chart. The first problem is unrated players. Dan looks at the results of each unrated player (including the number of points the player scored). Using this information, he assigns a rating to each unrated player. From now on he treats unrated players just like rated players using the newly assigned rating. So, you do win and lose points when you play an unrated player. To finish calculating the posttournament ratings, Dan makes two passes through the results. The first pass is a screening pass to identify players whose ratings should be adjusted. Dan uses the rating chart to calculate how many points each player would win for the tournament. Any player who would win at least fifty rating points has his rating adjusted up. This means that Dan replaces his pretournament rating with a new adjusted rating which is used as his rating for the second pass. In the second pass, Dan uses the rating chart again to calculate the posttournament rating for each player. So, from the point of view of the rating system, there are actually three ratings for every player in a tournament. The first rating is the pretournament rating which is the rating the player has going into the tournament after all earlier tournaments have been processed. This is not necessarily the same as the rating used at the tournament since Dan processes the tournaments in the order they were played. The second rating is the adjusted pretournament rating. This is different from the pretournament rating for two classes of players: 1. unrated players, 2. players who have their ratings adjusted. No one has a zero adjusted rating, since all the unrated players are given a rating. If the player was rated and he is not being adjusted, then his adjusted rating is the same as his pretournament rating. The third rating is the posttournament rating. To summarize: the pretournament rating is the rating before the tournament is processed. The adjusted rating is the rating after unrated players are given ratings and after the first screening pass. The posttournament rating is the player's new rating that will be published in the next issue of TT Today. DATA Dan graciously sent me the results from eight tournaments played in April and May 1989. Here are some statistics of the number of players and matches in those eight tournaments.  Category  Players  Matches   Number Per cent  Number Per cent  of total  of total  all  459 100.0  1510 100.0 unrated  49 10.7  225 14.9 adjusted  49 10.7  417 27.6 unrated or adjusted  98 21.4  609 40.3  The row labeled "all" is all the players and all the matches. The row labeled "unrated" is those players who were unrated going into the tournament and those matches in which either player was unrated. The row labeled "adjusted" is those players who had their ratings adjusted and those matches in which either player was adjusted. The row labeled "unrated or adjusted" is those players who were either unrated or had their ratings adjusted and those matches in which either player was unrated or adjusted. In case you were wondering, the number of "unrated" matches plus the number of "adjusted" matches doesn't equal the number of "unrated or adjusted" matches because there were 33 matches in which an unrated player played an adjusted player. It is interesting that 40.3% of the matches involve unrated or adjusted players. This and the fact that you don't know the pretournament ratings is why you can't exactly calculate your own posttournament rating. Which set of ratings should we use to construct a handicap chart? Well, in principle we should use the pretournament ratings since these ratings are closest to the ratings that are actually used at the tournaments. Rather than make a decision, we'll construct charts using each of the three sets of ratings. From djmarcus@tasc.com Wed Feb 10 10:38:58 1993 Subject: 3.2.2 WHAT'S THE PROBABILITY OF WINNING?  We want to extract from the data the probability of winning a match as a function of the difference in ratings of the two players. Let's look at the distribution of the matches by rating.  Rating  Pre  Adjusted  Post difference   Matches Upsets  Matches Upsets  Matches Upsets  0 299  973 272  1126 260  1123 212 300 599  229 15  275 4  283 1 600 899  69 1  86 0  80 0 9001199  11 0  17 0  18 0 12003000  3 0  6 0  6 0  The reason there are fewer total matches in the "Pre" column is that we have excluded those matches that involve an unrated player. For our purposes, the main thing to notice is how few matches there are with large rating differences and how few of them are upsets. Hence any estimate we calculate for the probability of winning when there are large rating differences will be of questionable accuracy. Of course we are using only 8 tournaments; there are over 200 tournaments per year. TECHNICAL STUFF To proceed we need a model for the probability of winning a nonhandicap match as a function of the rating difference. This gets technical for awhile. We will use a logistic model. Let D be the rating difference, P be the probability of winning a nonhandicap 2 out of 3 match, and b be the model parameter. The form of the logistic model is P( D ) = exp( bD ) / ( 1 + exp( bD ) ) We fit the model to each of the three sets of data by maximum likelihood. Here is the result.  Ratings  b  Pre  0.00795 Adjusted  0.01115 Post  0.01517  Each model lets us calculate the probability of winning a nonhandicap 2 out of 3 match for any difference in rating. Given standard assumptions (probability of winning a point is independent of the score and of who is serving) a probability of winning a nonhandicap 2 out of 3 match corresponds to a probability of winning a point. This suggests how to calculate a handicap chart. Pick one of the three models. Pick a rating difference. Convert this to the probability of winning a nonhandicap 2 out of 3 match using the model. Convert this to the probability of winning a point. Now find the handicap such that the probability of winning a handicap match is 0.5 (i.e., the handicap match is fair to both players). By the way, my 386 computer (no coprocessor) needed about an hour to compute the charts. From djmarcus@tasc.com Wed Feb 10 10:38:58 1993 Subject: 3.2.3 HANDICAP CHARTS  Here are the handicap charts calculated from the above data. First are the charts for a 51 point game. Second are the charts for a 21 point game. Each table contains three handicap charts labeled "Pre", "Adjusted", and "Post" corresponding to the three sets of ratings that we have. Since we had so little data for rating differences of more than 300 points, I wouldn't be surprised if the charts are not good for large handicaps. I've used these handicap charts in tournaments and I recommend you use the Post chart.  Handicap  Rating Difference   Pre  Adjusted  Post  0  0 9  0 6  0 5 1  10 29  7 21  6 15 2  30 49  22 35  16 26 3  50 70  36 50  27 37 4  71 92  51 65  38 48 5  93 114  66 81  49 60 6  115 137  82 98  61 72 7  138 161  99 115  73 84 8  162 186  116 133  85 97 9  187 212  134 151  98 111 10  213 240  152 171  112 126 11  241 269  172 192  127 141 12  270 300  193 214  142 157 13  301 333  215 237  158 174 14  334 368  238 262  175 193 15  369 405  263 289  194 212 16  406 445  290 317  213 233 17  446 488  318 348  234 256 18  489 534  349 381  257 280 19  535 583  382 416  281 305 20  584 636  417 454  306 333 21  637 694  455 495  334 363 22  695 756  496 539  364 396 23  757 823  540 586  397 431 24  824 895  587 638  432 469 25  896 973  639 694  470 510 26  9741058  695 755  511 555 27  10591150  756 820  556 603 28  11511251  821 892  604 655 29  12521360  893 969  656 712 30  13611478  9701054  713 775 31  14791608  10551147  776 843 32  16091750  11481248  844 917 33  17511906  12491359  918 999 34  19072077  13601481  10001089 35  20782267  14821616  10901188 36  22682477  16171766  11891298 37  24782711  17671933  12991421 38  27122973  19342120  14221559 39  29743000  21212331  15601713 40   23322570  17141889 41   25712844  18902091 42   28453000  20922324 43    23252598 44    25993000   Handicap  Rating Difference   Pre  Adjusted  Post  0  0 23  0 17  0 12 1  24 73  18 52  13 38 2  74 127  53 90  39 66 3  128 185  91 132  67 97 4  186 251  133 179  98 131 5  252 327  180 233  132 171 6  328 414  234 295  172 217 7  415 518  296 369  218 271 8  519 641  370 457  272 336 9  642 790  458 563  337 414 10  791 970  564 691  415 508 11  9711190  692 848  509 623 12  11911460  8491041  624 765 13  14611797  10421281  766 942 14  17982223  12821585  9431165 15  22242774  15861978  11661454 16  27753000  19792504  14551840 17   25053000  18412383 18    23843000  From ttennis@bu.edu Fri Jan 21 00:39:04 1994 Subject: 3.3 CANADIAN TTA to USATT RATING CONVERSION CHART ========================================================== 00000399 +670 18001899 +090 23502399 050 04000699 +545 19001999 +055 24002449 060 07000899 +460 20002049 +025 24502499 065 09001099 +390 20502099 +010 25002549 075 11001299 +315 21002149 005 25502599 085 13001499 +245 21502199 015 26002649 095 15001599 +195 22002249 020 26502699 100 16001699 +160 22502299 030 27002749 110 17001799 +125 23002349 040 27502799 120 From djmarcus@tasc.com Wed Feb 10 10:39:02 1993 Subject: 3.4 DOES IT MATTER WHO SERVES FIRST? ============================================= (See p31 of Jan/Feb 91 TTTopics) At the start of every match, assuming you win the coin flip (or the roll of the ball), you must decide if you want to serve or to receive. Does it matter which you choose? Now, I don't mean is there a psychological advantage. To see what I mean consider chess. There is a significant advantage to having white in chess. Even if you prefer defense to offense, you should take white. Or consider a game of volleyball. In volleyball your team only scores points when it is serving. It is intuitively clear that, given a choice, you should serve first. So what about table tennis? Is there an actual advantage to serving first? Before reading further, try to answer this question. Let's be explicit about our modeling assumptions. Assume that the probability of winning a point only depends on which player is serving, and in particular is independent of the score. First note that if the game goes deuce, then it doesn't matter who served first since no matter who wins, each player will have served the same number of times. What if the game doesn't go deuce? Consider the following modification of the rules: Rather than stopping when one player reaches 21, keep playing until 40 points have been played. If you win the game under the modified rules, then you must win at least 21 of the 40 points and hence would have won the game under the standard rules. Similarly if you lose under the modified rules, you also would have lost under the standard rules. But, under the modified rules, both players serve 20 times and so it doesn't matter which one served first. So the answer to our question is: No, it doesn't matter who serves first. How about handicap matches? Traditionally a handicap match is played as one game to 51. In order to analyze this, modify the rules so we'll play a total of 100 points (unless we go deuce). Serve changes when the sum of the scores is a multiple of 5, just as in nonhandicap games. Let A be the player who serves first and let B be the player who serves second. Suppose the handicap is 1 point. Player A serves 4 points and then B serves 5 points, and the rest of the game continues normally with each player serving 5 points at a time. Hence A will serve a total of 49 points and B will serve a total of 50. Therefore you should choose to serve second (unless you are weird and are more likely to win a point when your opponent serves). Now let's consider a handicap of 5. Then player A will serve 50 points and B will serve 45. Therefore you should serve first. If the handicap is 10, then both players will serve 45 and it doesn't matter who serves first. Let's summarize what you should do for handicap games. Only the last digit matters (so you want to do the same thing for a handicap of 17 as for a handicap of 7). If the last digit of the handicap is 0, then it doesn't matter who serves first. If the last digit of the handicap is 1, 2, 3, or 4, then you want to serve second. If the last digit of the handicap is 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, then you want to serve first. We'll leave doubles for a future article or you might try it as a (difficult) homework problem. It might also be interesting to analyze a 2 out of 3 handicap match where each game is to 21. Perhaps a few words about psychological advantage is in order. If there is no real advantage and the players know this, then there shouldn't be any psychological advantage. However, if you know there is no real advantage, but your opponent doesn't, then perhaps you can get a psychological advantage by letting him serve first. From Alexander.J.Chien@med.umich.edu Tue Feb 23 11:50:24 1993 Subject: 3.5. What is Speedglue ? ================================= Speedglue, the glue used in the practice of regluing your rubbers, has been used since the late 70's. I believe that the practice was attributed to Klampar or Surbek. What the players do before each practice session or match is to peel off the rubber sheet from the wood blade, put fresh glue on both the blade and rubber sheets, and replace the rubbers back onto the wood. The secret is a solvent that is found in the glue  most commonly  trichloroethylene. The trichloroethene can penetrate into the molecular network of the sponge effectively 'swelling' up the sponge (A crude analogy may be taking a sponge that the hard when dry and becomes soft wneh wet). The rubber sheet, when 'swelled' by trichloroethylene becomes much softer. This will do a few things to your bat. The ball can penetrate further into the sponge of your rubber, in effect, making more contact with the blade. Thus, the more contact the ball has with the blade, the faster your shot will be. Also, since you can sink the ball further into the spong you can generate more spin. The softer sponge also markedly increases the dwell time that the ball stays on your racket  so it can also increase your control. Regluing is more effective with rubber sheets that have a soft sponge. The softer sponges have a less heavily crosslinked molecular network than hard sponges that allow the solvents to penetrate easier and swell/expand the sponge easier. Thus, there will be more of a regluing effect if you use a soft sponged rubber. However, a soft sponge will lose it's elastisity faster than a hard sponge. Some disadvantages come with regluing. The first disadvantage is the decrease in elasticity of the sponge. When trichloroethylene penetrates the sponge and breaks apart molecular crosslinks, the sponge becomes softer. When the solvent proceeds to evaporate from the sponge, the crosslinks are not in the same condition as they were before the solvent was applied, and thus, a decrease in the elasticity/ resilience of the sponge. After about 20 regluings, there can be a significant change from the original character of the rubber. The second disadvantage is the constant change is racket angle when playing. The effect of the solvent gradually decreases over time, and constant modifications in your racket angle must be done. Also, regluing will add weight to your bat each time you reglue because of the extra glue applied. Finally, the solvents used are usually very volatile, toxic, and could be cancerous. From ttennis@bu.edu Fri Jan 21 00:39:04 1994 Subject: 3.5.1 First PRESS RELEASE STATEMENT on SPEEDGLUE BAN  The ITTF Executive Board, at its meeting at Manchester on 14th of December 1992, received reports from scientific experts in toxicology and chemistry on the harmful effects of the Aromatic and Chlorinated solvents used in some types of rubber adhesives. On the basis of these reports it was agreed unanimously to recommend the Executive Commitee to take urgent action to prevent the use of such adhesives by Table Tennis Players. The Executive Commitee accepted this recommendation and decided: 1. To impose an immediate ban in events directly under ITTF control, such as the Global Youth Championships in Tokyo in January 1993 and the World Championships in Gothnburg in May 1993; and 2. To ask Continental and National Federations and organisers of international competitions to enforce a similar ban in events under their control from 1st January 1 Any person, e.g. player, coach, official, responsible for contravening this rule will be liable to immediate disqualification and suspension for at least 3 months. Where it is necessary for rubbers to be replaced during a competition it must be done in a designated place, under the supervision of an official and using an adhesive supplied by the organiser. Manufacturers and suppliers are asked to discontinue marketing of adhesive containing Aromatic and Chlorinated solvents, and to ensure that their products are clearly marked with the ingredients. Players and coaches are asked to cooperate in ensuring that the ban is observed. Manchester, December 15th, 1992. Signed Ichiro Ogimura, President. From hoens@gmd.de Tue Apr 30 10:38:13 1993 Subject: 3.5.2 WHAT SPEEDGLUES are ITTFAPPROVED?  this is the list of ittfapproved speedglues, list nr 3, dated 17.march93 Andro Fast, Butterfly Fair Chack, Butterfly Pro Chack, Changi Power Drive, Contra Speed, Donic Appelgren Puro, Hanno Fresh, Joola Green, Juic Ecolo Effect, Nittaku Banda Waldner Clean, Nittaku Rubber Dine, Posno Spin Speed, Schildkroet TT Glue, Schoeler & Micke Belagkleber, Skitt Coppa Light, Stiga Victory Tibhar, Rapid Clean, TSP Norika Clean, Victoria Belagkleber From LEEEDWARDS@delphi.com Tue Nov 16 22:50:05 1993 Subject: 3.5.3 FIGHT THE GLUE BAN: ITTF vs TRUE =============================================== THE OSAKA VICE INCIDENT AND THE GLUE BAN THE ITTF VERSION AND THE TRUTH THE ITTF VERSION On December 4 the police raided a table tennis shop in Osaka, Japan, and confiscated their stock of adhesives; the resulting large headlines in the press were not flattering to the sport. Good timing! The Executive Board had to formulate a recommendation, with no time for further inquiry or considered deliberation. Yet with publicity like that the ITTF could not be seen to take no action. The manufacturers had done nothing to remove the problem, so the ITTF had to. Failure to act could result in very costly legal liability. The ITTF E.C. had to take immediate action after the incident in Japan  otherwise the amount of negative publicity would have been extremely damaging to the sport, and the ITTF could even have been subject to litigation. The ITTF's action last December was indeed a political response to the police raid in Osaka, albeit a rather pragmatic one. For the fact is that headlines are headlines, and a struggling sport like ours cannot afford bad ones. THE TRUTH The police raid in Osaka was only reported in local newspapers. There was no report of it in newspapers in Tokyo. It was too small an incident to be reported nationwide. I would be very much surprised if it was reported outside Japan. It was too small even to be handled nationwide. The start of the police raid was a phone call from parents of a junior table tennis player. She went to a table tennis shop in Osaka and asked for that glue (a particular Japanese brand containing the solvent toluene). An employee explained to her that if she was to used for glue sniffing, she should do it secretly. This was found out by her parents, who called the police, and there was a raid. The police confiscated the glue from the store. The thing was that the employee sold it knowing it would be used for a purpose other than table tennis. THE MANUFACTURERS AND THE GLUE BAN THE ITTF VERSION AND THE TRUTH THE ITTF VERSION President Ogimura met in December with more than ten manufacturers and reported on the problems associated with the ban on certain types of glue. The ITTF does expect all manufacturers to adapt themselves to the new situation. a. Announcement of harmless rubber adhesive for the time being during the transition period. b. Announcement of systems which will not require rubber adhesive at all when players put rubber on their rackets. For example: 1. Rubber sheet which is coated with pressure sensitive adhesive, and coated by cover paper. 2. A film which is coated by pressure sensitive adhesive on both sides with cover papers for the use of those rubbers without adhesive prefixed. Too much spin on the ball encourages short rallies. Even without speed glues, 10,000 rotations per minute have been reported. Mistakes by misjudging spin cannot be understood, appreciated or cheered by spectators inside the arena and on TV. Out of this meeting the Japanese manufacturers agreed to cooperate with the ITTF. THE TRUTH The Manufacturers Panel has to correct the following remark given at Mr. Ogimura's Press Conference on May 14th, 1993 "No manufacturers were against the decision." The Manufacturers Panel told the ITTF in the Manufacturers Meeting: 1. We fully agree with ban of toxic glues as done by the end of last year and fully assist the efforts of ITTF to find a way to take out all harmful agents. 2. We feel that the way the glue problem has been handled in this Championship (Gothenburg) is good, at least up to a future solution to be acceptable for all (ITTF, Players, Manufacturers). 3. We think that the question of ban glueing is no longer only a problem of health, but of the view of developing our sport (Mr. Ogimura likes to reduce speed and spin, which we do not think is necessary). Besides the discussion about glueing we have demanded several times during this meeting (to Mr. Ogimura and the Equipment Committee) not to change any rule concerning material without doing serious tests together with players and manufacturers during a 2yearsperiod in advance. Gothenburg, May 19th, 1993 On behalf of the Manufacturers Panel Butterfly Donic Joola Nittaku From paulsenr@gaya.nki.no Wed Dec 06 09:45:52 1995 Subject: 3.6 ITTF, ETTU, World Rank List, Nov 1995 =================================================== I have now posted the latest world ranking on my site, if you want to take a look at it, you will find it at: http://gaya.nki.no:80/~paulsenr/fokus/wran1195.htm From jaeger@is.informatik.unistuttgart.de Tue Mar 21 17:10:29 1995 Subject: 3.6.1 MEN (Sep95)  World Europe New Old 1 1 1662 1 JeanMichel SAIVE BEL 2 2 1616 WANG Tao CHN 3 6 1597 2 JeanPhilippe GATIEN FRA 4 7 1587 KIM Taek Soo KOR 5 3 1584 3 JanOve WALDNER SWE 6 7 1562 4 Zoran PRIMORAC CRO 7 4 1545 MA Wenge CHN 8 9 1534 5 Jörg ROSSKOPF GER 9 10 1527 LI Gun Sang PRK 10 4 1525 6 Peter KARLSSON SWE 11 11 1509 7 Andrzej GRUBBA POL 12 13 1508 KONG Linhui CHN 13 12 1503 LIU Gouliang CHN 14 14 1501 8 Jörgen PERSSON SWE 15 15 1493 Johnny HUANG CAN 16 16 1473 KIM Song Hui PRK 17 18 1468 YOO Nam Kyu KOR 18 17 1464 WANG Yonggang CHN 19 18 1463 9 CHEN Xinhua ENG 20 20 1430 LU Lin CHN 21 21 1414 DING Song CHN 22 22 1401 XIE Chaojie CHN 23 23 1376 WANG Hao CHN 24 24 1374 Hiroshi SHIBUTANI JPN 25 24 1365 10 DING Yi AUT 26 26 1360 11 Vladimir SAMSONOV BLR 27 28 1356 12 Erik LINDH SWE 28 34 1349 LIN Zhigang CHN 29 29 1348 Kiyoshi SAITOH JPN 30 46 1347 XIONG Ke CHN 31 27 1346 13 Patrick CHILA FRA 32 30 1342 14 Mikael APPELGREN SWE 33 31 1341 15 Petr KORBEL CZE 34 32 1337 16 Carl PREAN ENG 35 37 1335 CHENG Yinghua USA 36 33 1325 17 Philippe SAIVE BEL 37 35 1323 18 Calin CREANGA GRE 38 42 1317 19 Dimitri MAZUNOV RUS 39 36 1315 ZHANG Lei CHN 40 62 1313 20 Damien ELOI FRA 41 48 1306 21 Thierry CABRERA BEL 42 38 1305 Iljia LUPULESKU USA 43 40 1304 KANG Hee Chan KOR 44 41 1303 22 Steffen FETZNER GER 45 42 1299 LEE Chul Seung KOR 45 42 1299 23 GeorgZsolt BÖHM GER 47 45 1297 24 Andreas Podpinka BEL 48 38 1295 25 Paul HALDAN NED 49 50 1294 26 Andrei MAZUNOV RUS 50 62 1293 Koji MATSUSHITA JPN 51 47 1292 LO Chuen Tsung HKG 52 49 1278 DONG Lun CHN 53 51 1277 27 Peter FRANZ GER 54 52 1275 CHOI Gyong Sop PRK 55 54 1272 28 Igor SOLOPOV EST 56 57 1260 29 Trinko KEEN NED 57 65 1255 30 Alan COOKE ENG 58 56 1249 31 YANG Min ITA 59 59 1245 CHAN Kong Wah HKG 60  1244 IWASAKI Kiyonobu JPN 61 64 1236 KIM Myong Jun PRK 62 63 1234 32 Vasile FLOREA ROM 63 61 1233 33 Christophe LEGOUT FRA 63 60 1233 WU WenChia TPE 65 66 1231 MATSUSHITA Yuji JPN 65 67 1231 34 Matthew SYED ENG 67  1224 35 Danny HEISTER NED 68 65 1218 36 Olivier MARMUREK FRA 69 75 1212 37 Thomas VON SCHEELE SWE 69 71 1212 38 Lucjan BLASZCZYK POL 71 69 1211 39 Tomas JANCI SVK 72 72 1208 40 Zoran KALINIC YUG 72 70 1208 CHU Kyo Sung KOR 72 70 1208 WANG Fei CHN 75 74 1207 41 Roland VIMI SVK . . . . 81 81 1182 46 Richard PRAUSE GER 147 139 1033 82 Oliver ALKE GER 150 144 1031 84 Christian DREHER GER 151 142 1030 85 Torben WOSIK GER 218 190 907 123 Sascha KÖSTNER GER 222 215 898 127 Thomas SCHRÖDER GER 238 246 880 136 KayAndrew GREIL GER 306  806 181 Thomas KEINATH GER (02/1995) From jaeger@is.informatik.unistuttgart.de Tue Feb 18 17:37:51 1994 Subject: 3.6.2 WOMEN (Sep94)  1 1 2258 DENG Yaping CHN 2 2 2087 QIAN Hong CHN 3 3 2002 GAO Jun CHN 4 5 2000 Chai Po Wa HKG 5 4 1995 CHEN Zihe CHN 6 11 1966 LIU Wei CHN 7 10 1961 TANG Weiyi CHN 8 6 1952 WANG Chen CHN 9 7 1949 LI Bun Hui PRK 10 6 1937 CHEN Jing TPE 11 9 1932 YU Sun Bok PRK 12 14 1906 GENG Lijuna CAN 13 12 1903 JING Jun Hong SIN 14 16 1897 WU Na CHN 15 15 1894 ZHENG Yuan CHN 16 16 1890 Chire KOYAMA JPN 17 18 1870 1 Jie Schöpp GER 18 20 1853 2 Csilla BATORFI HUN 18 19 1853 2 Otilia BADESCU ROM 20 22 1848 CHAN Tan Lui HKG 21 21 1836 4 Nicole STRUSE GER 22 23 1832 YING Ronghui CHN 23 24 1827 5 Bettine VRIESEKOOP NED 24  1794 QIAO Yunping CHN 25 26 1790 LI Mi Suk PRK 26 28 1785 LI Ju CHN 27 30 1782 YANG Ying CHN 28 27 1778 Fumiyo YAMASHITA JPN 29 29 1774 XU Jing TPE 30 30 1773 6 Xiaoming WANGDRECHOU FRA 31 25 1766 CHENG To HKG 32 32 1764 AN Hui Suk PRK 32 33 1764 Diana HUANG CAN 34 34 1753 7 Fliura ABBATEBULATOVA ITA 35 35 1747 8 Marie SVENSSON SWE 36 36 1740 9 TU Dai Yong SUI 37 38 1738 WI Sun Bok PRK 38 38 1714 10 Emilia Elena CIOSU ROM 39  1705 LEE Kyung Sun KOR 40 46 1701 PARK Hae Jung KOR 41 48 1689 PARK Kyung Hae KOR 42 42 1685 11 Jasna FAZLICLUPULESCU YUG 42 42 1685 11 Olga NEMES GER 44 41 1684 LEE Jung Im KOR 45 39 1677 13 Elena TIMINA RUS 46 44 1669 14 Daniela GERGELCHEVA BUL 46 45 1669 14 Alena SUCHANKOVA CZE 48 43 1668 16 Mirjam HOOMAN NED 49  1666 Mitsue ENDO JPN 50 47 1656 17 Galina MELNIK RUS 51  1654 LEE Tae Joo KOR 52 48 1651 18 Asa SVENSSON SWE 53 50 1649 19 Lisa LOMAS ENG 54 52 1642 20 Krisztina TOTH HUN 55 51 1640 KIM Boon Sik KOR 56 56 1639 21 Irina PALINA RUS 56 66 1639 RYU Ji Hye KOR 58 53 1638 22 Valentna POPOVA SVK 59  1632 JUNFENG Amy USA 60 58 1617 23 NI Xialian LUX 61 57 1615 GAO Dong Ping SIN 62 59 1610 24 Alessia ARISI ITA 62 54 1610 Rika SATO JPN 64 70 1609 LI Chunli NZL 65 60 1603 25 Gerdie KEEN NED . . . . 95 93 1447 44 Christiane PRAEDEL GER 102 101 1411 48 Elke SCHALL GER 136 138 1303 72 Christina FISCHER GER 213 217 1145 126 Nicole DELLE GER 222 224 1132 132 Nina WOLF GER 228 231 1121 137 Cornelia BÖTTCHER GER 247 252 1091 146 Sandra STROEZEL GER (08/1994) User Contributions:Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:
[ Usenet FAQs  Web FAQs  Documents  RFC Index ]
Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer: ttennis@bu.edu
Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:12 PM
