History of U.S. Table Tennis VOLUME VI
Having necessarily devoted a full volume—Vol. V—to the history-making “Ping-Pong Diplomacy” visit of our U.S. Team to China in 1971 and the reciprocal visit of the Chinese Team to the U.S. in 1972, I return here to where I’d left off in Vol. IV—the late spring/summer start of the 1970-71 season—and thus continue my unbroken chronological account of Table Tennis in this country.
Beginning with the first (July-Aug., 1970) issue under my Editorship, the official USTTA publication, Table Tennis Topics, undergoes a radical change that in ensuing months, indeed years, will see…a proliferation of reported tournament results and write-ups not only from all around the U.S. but from abroad too; highly detailed Executive Committee Minutes/Discussions; personal point-of-view articles; and Letters to the Editor that make for an “openness” heretofore not given the Membership.
Of course it’s inevitable that with such freedom comes controversy. Not everyone likes what some people say openly, and so protest. They prefer that things be left unsaid, that lies and half-truths not be given a voice. However, I’ve believed all my life that in a democracy, as opposed to a dictatorship, dirty laundry (with some exceptions) is aired, and that, if everyone is allowed his/her say, the truth will eventually out. To my mind, disagreement has its virtues, and I feel the freedom of speech I advocated in Topics allowed for a system of checks and balances on me or anyone else who, all too humanly, might get out of line.
In any case, I think it fair to say that, although my newspaper/magazine inexperience shows woefully in layout, graphics, and use (or non-use) of photos, I undeniably bring a vitality to Topics that the readership appreciates. When, for example, I’d carry 200 copies of an issue hot off the press to a tournament, I couldn’t hand them out fast enough. Part of the players’ enthusiasm for the magazine is because, compared to what they’ve had in the past, it’s so readable. No longer are articles mere rehashes of tournament scores; now you can see literate writers really enjoying their opportunity for free expression. Here’s a fellow (TTT, March-April, 1972, 12) having serious-minded fun:
“To the Editor:
…[I have] watched with interest your handling of Topics. Your journalism textbook must have been The Magic Christian.
That’s not a negative comment. I like Topics now, whether or not it’s really all new….
There’s a thread of continuity that binds the new Topics to the old—a thread that may account for the thoroughly bemoaned ignominy of table tennis in this country. One finds that thread woven into most of the articles and nearly all of the letters.
It’s an unbroken strand of pettiness.
Crybabies are found in every sport. In table tennis, to read Topics, it’s hard to find any sports among the crybabies.
I believe that’s why people drop out of or never get strongly involved in ‘big-time’ table tennis. Petty rules, petty cliques, petty crybaby players
The game has no f—ing class….
DICK LANHAM
3814 Gundry Ave.
Long Beach, CA 90807”
Another innovation in the making was Jack Howard’s ambitious project of raising a nation-wide ladder to the stars via a computer rating system. Using a formula based on the player-rating system of the International Chess Federation, and mindful of a (similar?) “system, on a smaller and simpler scale, [that] was actually used in the Pacific Northwest,” Jack hoped to echo, nation-wide, Dr. Jim Goodwin’s regional success. His aim was to “crank out a monthly rating list of every player who competes in sanctioned tournaments”—and in as many classifications as initially possible. Also, for perhaps a $2 fee, a player would be able to receive “a complete record of all his matches.” Tournament organizers would also be helped because the permanent records would “automatically determine the event eligibility of all players.”
Trial and error adjustments might have to be made, Jack said, regarding the equitable number of points awarded for wins and losses among players, particularly with regard to upsets, but so long as sponsors got out their tournament results quickly, the ratings would be up to date. Many players would be pleased to see their name in print and, in hopes of raising their rating, would want to practice more and attend more tournaments. Players, club owners, tournament sponsors would all benefit (Topics, Sept.-Oct., 1970, 11).
As we’ll see, Jack himself in time will leave this taxing project, will retire from the Sport, but as a result of his initial efforts, his successor, Neal Fox, will persevere until ratings (showing the current strength of the player) will supplant rankings (dependent on a performance average over a season, as well as required tournament-participation points).
The 1971 Team to the U.S. World’s was determined by a Selection Committee mindful not so much of any player’s past ranking, but by recent accumulated play, and particularly by a contender’s performance over a grueling Nov., 1970 weekend, both in round-robin International Team Squad (ITS) Matches and U.S. Open Team Championship play. The USTTA, as might be seen in Fall, 1970 articles by Steve Isaacson and Vic Landau, was moving away from a U.S. Team being formed by a Selection Committee’s subjective appraisal, sometimes in the past greatly influenced by just one or two men.
ITS Director and U.S. Team Captain Howard had criticized the traditional USOTC practice of the many team-tie “busy” matches strong players had mindlessly to endure against relatively weak players. Satellite play should be fostered, he said; Qualifying play instituted. And, indeed, in years to come, this would be the respectful way the USTTA would treat its top players vying for U.S. Championships and World Team positions, while all the while preserving, democratically, the opportunity for others to contend against them.
Thus, by 1972, with Dick Miles as its Selection Chair, the Association would opt for a single round-robin competition among a had-to-qualify field that, based objectively on the players’ wins and losses, would determine the Team members. Had there not been such a competition, likely super-star-to-be Danny Seemiller, who turned out surprisingly to be the #1 Men’s finisher, would not have been named by a Selection Committee to the 1973 World Team—with perhaps life-changing consequences for him and others.
U.S. players, including our Juniors, became as a group more independent-minded, more willing to speak up for player-power in this decade of the ‘70’s. In the spring of 1971, some of our best Juniors, boys and girls, under Captain Dell Sweeris, took the initiative to eagerly raise money to play in the English Junior Open. After our Team had lost a number of matches there, Dell came home and suggested in Topics (July-August, 1971, 7; 26) some ways that we could turn our losers into winners:
“…Arrive 4-7 days in advance of the big tournament and have a daily schedule of training and practice matches with other countries or even local clubs.” However, make sure players “get enough rest.” A squad of men, women, and junior teams should travel to Asia or Europe “for 2-4 weeks at least once each season.” These players could play in weekend tournaments and travel around the rest of the time playing matches wherever hospitality could be arranged. Also, foreign players ought to be invited to the U.S.—perhaps via an exchange program. That Dell felt he had to suggest what now seems to us obvious shows how inexperienced and unconcerned our officials in the ‘60’s had been vis-à-vis the world table tennis scene, and how difficult it might be to bring these suggested improvements about.
Gradually, both USTTA officials and the Membership in general began to take seriously the thought that, yes, the U.S. could have a recognizable place in world table tennis. This shift in attitude came about because of the attention given to International play in Topics, the coming of more and more visiting world-class players to different parts of the U.S., and, in the beginning, because our reciprocal exchange with the Chinese raised our stature in our own eyes.
Of course, the question is always asked: Given all the U.S.-China exchange publicity, why didn’t Table Tennis catch on? Why wouldn’t the public come out to watch the matches? I’m not talking about exhibitions that people would enjoy seeing, though not repetitively, for entertainment. But real, competitive matches. What’s needed? Answer: Personal involvement in who’s playing, a passionate interest in the outcome of the play. But how develop that?
Prior to the coming of the Chinese, the USTTA held its 1972 election for USTTA officers—an election that was unprecedented in its combative nature among Presidential candidates Jack Carr and a sharply attacking Tim Boggan. To give you a feel for this most privately and publicly discussed election in the then 40-year history of the Association I reproduce here a preview of the “as-it-happened messiness” to come—two complementary yet divergent points of view (TTT, March-April, 1972, 9):
“To the Editor:
I just received the Jan.-Feb. issue of Table Tennis Topics, which was excellent. I was extremely unhappy, however, when I read your statement for President of the USTTA. From past experience in many educationally-related political arenas, I’ve discovered that those who adamantly oppose the status quo usually don’t understand (not just disagree with) the philosophical reasons behind that view. From the last few issues of Topics, it seems that Jack Carr’s philosophy is compatible with that of Douglass MacGregor and his ‘Theory of “X.”’ In the ‘X’ Theory it is assumed that human beings are naturally lazy and need prodding to work well and efficiently. Threats are made, constant observation is necessary, and rules must be stringently obeyed so that order will prevail. You, however, apparently are against this, feeling parliamentary procedure and antiquated traditions are holding back the future of Table Tennis. Whether or not my interpretation of your respective positions was right, it was not your philosophy that I wrote to oppose, but rather your methods.
If “to keep trying with a passion, to continue to care in this frustrating world (and in this little inner circle of it—this t.t. world) is the most important lesson” you or any parent can hope to teach his children, you are doing a great disservice to yours just by intimating (whether it be true, or simply a psychological ploy to win votes) that you might not remain editor of T.T.T. should you lose the election. This magazine has come a long way through your efforts. It seems you have had more influence on those who read it this year than the current president of the USTTA. Trying to get more votes by using your sons as bait (their “future in the game might well be so greatly affected by this election”) is also reprehensible. Emotionalism must be disregarded in deciding for whom to cast a vote….
…[You] may wonder as to my own position in the election. It is fairly simple: please don’t interpret what I have to say as being apathetic. Like the limited choice between Nixon and Humphrey in 1968—by the time the election is over it will be shown that I have cast my vote for ‘Abstention.’
BRUCE A. KESSELMAN
Rutgers Post Office 928
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901”
“To the Editor:
I both like and respect Jack Carr and Tim Boggan. As a result I hesitated to write for fear of offending either or both of them. I have been nudged out of my lethargy, though, by two things, both occurring in the recent issue of Topics.
The first was Jack Howard’s campaign statement which struck a responsive chord in my education-oriented philosophy with his urge to “positive action and involvement.” Syrupy? Perhaps, but we’ve got to start somewhere.
The second item occurred near the end of Tim Boggan’s statement in which he inferred the choice of “elect me or lose me.” My first impression of this attitude was that it was ‘immature,’ but I couldn’t let it rest there.”
I do not feel that I know Tim Boggan personally (I am torn here between writing ‘Tim’ and ‘Mr.’), but I have had the opportunity to observe this man from one to five times a year at tournaments since 1965 when I have closely followed his tournament descriptions and other contributions in Topics for six years. One thing has shown through continually, and that is EMOTION. Perhaps emotion will not solve all problems, but after six years experience I cannot remember who the [USTTA] officers have been or when elections were held.
Now compare those years with today. This election features involvement—from so-called ‘slander’ to extra propaganda being mailed out by Mr. Carr and his friends who seem afraid or worried about the addition of emotion to the election.
In light of this it appears to me now that Mr. Boggan’s plea of ‘election or exclusion’ is a voice crying out in darkness for people to understand his passionate nature and affection for the sport of table tennis. This is not a babyish fit of temper so much as an attitude of ‘Isn’t it about time we did things?’ and ‘How much does a person have to give up in terms of time, energy, and work to show people that he cares?’
Jack Carr is an excellent worker and a nice guy. Tim Boggan is an excellent worker and appears to me to be a nice guy. When I have to make the choice between them I will vote for Tim because I feel that a leader needs some amount of dynamism and expressiveness, and that this is Tim Boggan’s strong point.
I am tired of silent executives who have preserved the status quo (check membership figures over the past 20 years) with some crumbling around the edges. I trust Tim and Jack, but I feel that Tim would trust my participation in the USTTA more than our ‘traditional’ leaders have. I want to participate in a going organization with dynamic Bogganesque leadership.
RALPH STADELMAN
Grand Rapids, Mich.”
As you will see, I won this election, having received 75% of the vote. In 1973, Carr was back running for office again—this time for Treasurer; and Mal Anderson, among others, was running for Vice-President. I thought I had good reason to urge voters not to vote for either of these candidates whom I didn’t want to work with, and so I wrote a Presidential column explaining why and voicing my preference for others I did want to work with.
Out of line, was I? I didn’t think so—but, as the “messiness” continued, one reader called me to task:
“To the Editor:
You have made the statement many times, most recently in your ‘President’s View’ article (see the March-April issue of Topics, p. 17), that you are sick of the pettiness of the “old guard” in table tennis. Yet, it seems, that you yourself are reverting to pettiness in your own statements.
In the above mentioned article, you tell us not to vote for Mal Anderson. You say that he is a ‘do-nothing follower,’ that he gives you ‘bad vibrations round the table,’ and that he is not ‘one of us.’ Having been isolated in Minnesota and unable to have any personal contact with E.C. types or people in the know, excluding, questionably, Charlie Disney, I would like to know just what in hell those statements mean.
You do explain, to a degree, the ‘do-nothing follower’; however, the rest remains unsupported, except by the statement that a year ago Mal didn’t like you and now he does but since you can’t forget a grudge get rid of him.
In defense of Anderson, was it not Emerson in ‘Self Reliance’ who said something to the effect that we must say what we think today in words like cannonballs and do the same thing tomorrow, even if what we believe then is totally different from what we believe today? Is it impossible to change one’s mind about you after a year of observing and working with you?
Putting the subject of pettiness aside for the moment, there is the larger issue of ‘Tim Boggan having the last word’ in all letters and articles that are published in Topics. I do not view this as a grave problem amid the normal crap that seems to be the subject of 90% (including this letter) of the letters to Topics. However, when you have the last comment on people’s campaign statements it is another matter.
The personal attacks that you waged against Carr and Anderson, pulling their statements apart, piece by piece, and refuting them point by point, was unfair use of your power. It seems that either no one else had a single incorrect statement or one that you disagreed with, or that you disliked Carr and Anderson personally to the point of misusing your combined editor-president power to get rid of them.
This letter is somewhat incomplete, as one should also propose solutions to the problems one presents. In this case, however, the problem resides in one person, Tim Boggan, and the best I can do is to appeal to him. Examine yourself (which, from what I have read of you and by you, you seem to do, since it seems you are a reflective person) and see if you think you are being petty and if perhaps you have used your editor’s powers to unfair advantage—and, please, no ‘ends justify the means’ crap—and act according to whatever hopefully honest and responsible conclusions you come to.
Thank you for your time and ear. VINCE KOLOSKI
Minneapolis, Minn.”
As readers have surely grasped by now, I’ve come to a point in my History volumes where, in necessarily covering my dual role as Editor/President of the Association, I am a very subjectively involved Historian. Further, as Historian, I’ve always taken the position that not only should I be expressing the point of view of everyone I’m writing about, but that I should be expressing my own point of view as Historian as thoughtfully as, subjectively, I objectively can (which is not to say without emotion).
Like any writer, I’m in charge of Selection and Arrangement. It’s my eye, I, the reader has to trust. So I see my chief responsibility as being as comprehensive and as truthful in what I say as I can consciously be. I’m obviously not writing these in-group books for material but for psychic profit. That is, I’m writing them to see if I can construct such a History to my own satisfaction, and as an enduring Record of the Sport. To keep writing I have to proudly satisfy myself that I’m being very conscientious—making as many right judgments as I can. My pleasure in doing the work is dependent on me believing in my credibility; if I’m pleased, I hope and think most of my readers will be.
As Editor, I was successful in bringing together in Topics the country’s disparate elements and points of view. As President, I strongly wanted to carry on the traditional importance of tournaments, which I saw as the lifeblood of the Association. I hadn’t the vision to try to organize state, interstate, and national leagues because I was so turned off by the non-tournament player, the recreational/social player.
It occurs to me now, though, that perhaps one reason why Leagues have never caught on in the U.S. as they have in Europe is because table tennis-players in the U.S. have traditionally been such an individual mix, have come from all different countries, or sections of the U.S. that are like different countries, that they haven’t a shared culture—the sense of place, the common language, the pride of community—that league-minded Europeans so loyally rooting for their home team have. Despite local league pockets here and there, a larger connection’s missing. Foreigners in the U.S. renewing an interest in table tennis that they had in their homeland now tend to be at least somewhat rootless. It’s hard for such players/spectators to root enthusiastically, to rally round the team flag when there isn’t a flag. And without teams having their enthusiastic support group, their cheering fans, their established rivalries, it’s going to be hard for League or Team play to be successful. There’s no audience for it. Meanwhile, the tournaments go on fostering fierce individual competition, while USTTA officials continue to lament the lack of Team Spirit among our players.
Everyone agrees the USTTA needs to increase its woeful Membership base—but for three-quarters of a century the Association’s looked across the gulf, and the recreation players have looked back. So: stalemate. Tim’s for the professional-minded rather than the amateur-minded player. He’s something of a paradox in that he’s for the common man, urges every kind of individual voice in Topics, but is focused on, you might say, elitist play. He wants to give attention to the best players…locally, regionally, nationally, internationally.
Table Tennis moves in these years, I think, not so much because of “Ping-Pong Diplomacy” where those on the “outside” couldn’t help but notice there was a USTTA, and, all in all, responded So What. But, first and foremost, because the greatly enlarged Topics gave those on the “inside” nation-wide recognition and therefore energy—so that Promoters, Tournament and Club organizers, Coaches, and Players all profited.
Now there were suddenly more opportunities to compete, for A,B,C and a vast range of Age events were coming into prominence and with the onset of USTTA Ratings would take on more meaning; there was an expansion of Junior play; a widespread acceptance of the need for prize money; and the desire for the Association to be less isolated, so that our players felt the urge to go abroad and wanted those world-class players overseas to come to the U.S. As all who played became more aware of the technological advances available, they were forced to become more athletic, and, caught up so, become mentally faster too, less lazy, more vigorous in both organizing more tournaments and barnstorming about to play in them. In short, there was a feeling that U.S. Table Tennis could become a Sport.
