Greg is now running the About.com
Table Tennis site, and as such a number of these articles will
be transferred over to About.com. Please feel free to join me at
About!
Got you own ideas about talent or different answers to the questions
above? Got some more questions to add? Email
me and I'll add your two cent's worth below.
COMMENTS
Saturday 5th November
Rick Anderson wrote:
Hi Greg:
Re: Your comment: "at the end of the day, if you won, then
you're the most talented".
This is demonstrably false. I will give a true example to back up
my position.
Last night at Bridgeport Sports Club I showed up early to hit with
whomever was around. No one was, just the juniors taking up most
of the tables training. I ended up playing someone who I had never
met or seen before. A penhold righty. From the get-go it was quite
clear who the more talented player was...me. He missed basic stokes
all too often and I put the ball right to his fh power zone every
time...just to help keep the rally going. Just like any player who
is completely outmatched...the other guy controls pretty much every
rally...extending it or finishing it...at will. To my surprise,
this gentleman asked me if I wanted to play a few games. I didn't
really see the point, considering the obvious difference in our
skill level/talent. I agreed to play however but we didnt agree
ahead of time how many games were to constitute a match. During
the first game I easily went up 8-2 and thought that this was like
shooting fish in a barrel so I made a decision to let up and let
him hit on me to make it closer. The score went to 8-4. I THEN decided
what my personal goal was going to be in regards to this match at
this moment. I suggested that we play "first to win five"....and
he agreed.
My goal (which I did not share with my opponent) was to lose
the first 4 games...yet be within two points and then to win the
next 5 in a row...beating him by a margin of 2 pts each time AND
to do all this without him saying something to the effect: "you're
not trying". So, as part of the goal..I had to convince him
that ALL scores were legit.
He went on to win the next 4 games (read: I controlled the entire
4 games and let him win by an exact margin of two points on every
single one of his *wins*). I then told him discreetly that I would
win the next 5 and that he had better "jaap jone ging sun"..."pay
attention and focus"...I went on to win the next 4 by an exact
margin of two points. In the final game (game #9) he was up 10-9
and smashed a ball to my backhand....and almost made the shot for
the win. I had accidently given him a freebee set up and should
have paid the price...but I got lucky..as his clear winner sailed
a shade long. I buckled down and finished it out 12-10....winning
the match 5-4..achieving a goal that only I knew about.
Now, my question to you is: Do you really think that if he had landed
that one shot at 10-9 in the 9'th and won the match that he was
therefore the more talented player?
Regards
Rick Anderson
Greg replied:
Hi Rick,
You make an interesting argument - but to answer your question
- I think your example still bears out my basic definition at the
start of the article - 'He who is on top has the most talent.'
Sure, I am coming from the point of view that you would want to
win - but even with your example I still think the basic definition
is not far off. Weren't you the player on top? Didn't you control
the match pretty much how you wanted? We only have your say so that
that was what you intended (not that I'm arguing), so I still think
winning the match is the easiest way to measure results, but assuming
you are correct that you were directing play then you were the player
on top - and thus the most talented. In this particular case the
result is not the best measure - but I'm not sure what would be
a better one!
