CHAPTER FOUR
1975:
Administration and Related Preoccupations.
With the coming of the U.S. Open (which I’ll cover in the next chapter), the E.C. held its Summer Meeting in Houston over four different sessions (not all officers could attend every session). There was a May 22nd opening discussion on whether the USTTA or the Houston organizers should pick up expenses for “the extra players brought to the tournament by South Korea and Israel,” and also expenses “for security for the Israeli team.” Although the E.C. felt those expenses should be borne by the USTTA, Houston obligingly picked them up. There were also extra players and officials from other foreign teams who requested free hospitality. Since apparently their Associations weren’t going to pay for these extras, what should the E.C. do about them? Tell the impending offenders that, unless they paid, their team didn’t play? Or, reluctantly, pay for them? A show of hands (apparently not a vote) found Mal Anderson, Lou Bochenski, Charlie Disney, and Marv Shaffer opposed to the USTTA paying, while Dick Miles and Bob Kaminsky felt the Association should cover the extra tab. The Minutes offered no further details.
The invitation to Israel, echoed by USTTA members Buddy Melamed and Felix Bogart who were distressed at the exclusion of Israel from the Calcutta World’s, served to right in some small way the wrong done that country. In earlier volumes, I’d spoken of ITTF politics regarding China and Taiwan, and now, in addition to Israel, I must mention South Korea as well.
Since the ITTF had recognized the Peking-based Asian Table Tennis Union (ATTU) as a new Continental body, its Jakarta-based rival, the Table Tennis Federation of Asia (TTFA), had dissolved (all former members, except Cambodia, Indonesia, South Korea, and South Vietnam had switched their allegiance). Now, though the ITTF Constitution prohibits “discrimination against any member Association or their individual members on racial, political, religious or other grounds,” such discrimination was in fact legalized in Calcutta. Our ITTF Delegate, Rufford Harrison, explains (TTT, Mar.-Apr., 1975, 13A).
The U.S. had argued that, “No Continental Federation may refuse membership to any member Association whose address in the ITTF Handbook is situated in the given Continent.” This, however, was rejected, 44 to 13, by the ITTF member countries (many of whom had been wooed by China)—and in its stead this wording was accepted: “…where, for reasons outside the control of the sport, an Association is not acceptable to its Continental Federation, this shall not prevent recognition of the Continental Federation.” Since South Korea, with its world #2 Women’s Team, is now not a member of, because not accepted by, the Continental Federation (read China) that governs, it will necessarily, by ITTF law, not be eligible without such affiliation to play much internationally.
Politics reared up to strike both Israel and South Africa when the Indian government, though allowing individuals from those countries to enter India, refused to give their Teams permission to take part in the tournament—this despite the ITTF Constitution that declares that all countries must be allowed to participate, and despite ITTF President Roy Evans’s attempts to diplomatically enforce the Federation’s anti-discrimination policy. Two USTTA members, Ed Pollaine and Robert Lande, upset at Israel’s exclusion, felt the USTTA should have boycotted the tournament.
Harrison pointed out that “India has no diplomatic exchange with Israel, and of course has to import huge quantities of oil at great expense of scarce hard currency from the Arab world.” And—more pragmatism, said Rufford—certainly “no Arab country could support a resolution suggesting that it frowned on the exclusion of Israel.” Said one Arab delegate privately, “We are at WAR.” With China, the USSR, Hungary, and Nigeria opposed, no formal rebuke of India was possible, and that settled their earlier threat to secede from the ITTF if censured.
India’s rationale for not accepting the black South African team, ironically “able for the first time since 1957 to obtain exit visas from its own government,” was that India had to enforce sanctions against representatives of an apartheid society (though at least some Team members were of “Indian origin”). These exclusions, the difficulties they presented, were all very regrettable, said ITTF President Roy Evans.
At the May 24th E.C. Meeting, George Otto “gave a presentation on ‘Multiple Management’ to assist table tennis manufacturers and the USTTA in working together to promote table tennis. President Disney, who’d worked with Otto to develop plans for a USTTA Executive Director, would set up a committee to see what progress could be made.
Mort Zakarin wants to run “a series of professional invitational tournaments.” Some trouble spots: “a possible conflict with the National Table Tennis League; the exclusivity clause to be 75 miles rather than 100 miles from the tournament site; the 10-year option after the first five years; and the need for further definition of the tournaments and what constitutes a ‘tour.’” Perhaps Danny Seemiller’s “Let’s Start A Pro Tour” article (TTT, July-Aug., 1975, 19) served as a catalyst for definitive action, for the USTTA would soon come to an agreement with World Table Tennis, Inc., which is what Zakarin and his partner Jules Rabin call their company. In detailing his plans (TTT, Sept.-Oct., 1975, 11), Mort tells us his first tournament will be held Nov. 15-16 at Long Island’s Adelphi University. Only the top 68 players according to Neil Fox’s rating system who wish to enter will be accepted, but they can be men, women, or juniors. There will be $1,700 in prize money distributed among the last 16 players—with $750 as 1st prize.
The May 25th Meeting, the 3rd one at the Houston tournament site, was to clarify that Tim Boggan had a valid three-year contract as Editor of Topics. He did. Boggan had received a lawyer’s letter demanding the magazine stop using Gabriel Industries’ trademark “PING PONG” (note the unhyphenated spelling). He wrote them back saying he would, and that was the end of it.
On May 26, the E.C. had their regular all-day Summer Meeting at the Astroworld Hotel (for which they were reimbursed half their transportation expenses). Highlights follow (TTT, July-Aug. 1975, 15-16).
The E.C. approved “revisions to the referees and umpires Manual.” “There will be 3 classes of umpires: Qualified Umpire, Regional Umpire, and National Umpire. The type of tests and passing grades for each class of umpire will be defined in the Standing Rules.” Rules Chair Mal Anderson (TTT, July-Aug., 1975, 16) warns prospective umpires of restrictions. You start by passing a Qualified Umpire exam.* Then, to take the Regional Exam, you have to have been a Qualified Umpire for two years and be appropriately recommended. Finally, to take the National Exam, you have to have been a Regional Umpire for two years and be appropriately recommended—at which point, to graduate, as it were, you have to “pass a tough written and oral exam.” The rather modest fees you’ll pay to take these exams “will pay for the badges” sent to the successful applicants.
If the U.S. runs the 1979 World’s, the best possible umpires will be needed—and Mal hopes their status will be recognized with “free hospitality and uniforms.” Qualify, he says—“It’s a good way to see the World’s from the playing floor.” Except in Calcutta, where the umpires threatened to boycott [I presume the last half of] the tournament when the police didn’t allow them “to watch the two [I presume Team] finals from the arena.”
Mal continues to keep us up-to-date on ITTF/USTTA rules—indicates, for example, that “playing clothes no longer have to be dark…[but] still must be one solid color,” and that “track suits or parts thereof should not be worn during play.” He has photos and explanations in Topics showing correct and incorrect serves. Regarding the Expedite Rule, whenever both players want it, it’s immediately put in.
New appointees: Rufford Harrison, International Chair; Bill Hodge, Chair of the Library and Film Committee; and John Read, Chair of the Selection Committee (Miles opposed).
There are now, after some shifting, 7 Tournament Regions, including a North Central (Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota). Clubs Chair Richard Feuerstein says that as of Mar. 10, 1975 the USTTA had 193 Affiliates. Curious as to how many states have only one affiliated club? Eight. Seven more states have only two. Given memberships that are set to expire between Feb. 1 and May 19, 1975, the Association has roughly 3,320 Adult members and 880 Junior members, or 4200 in all (about 420 of whom are Life members).
Treasurer Jack Carr presents (TTT, July-Aug., 1975, 19) a USTTA Treasury Statement for the Fiscal Year 1 June 1974—31 May 1975. The fiscal year General Fund Profit was $1,023.56. (Income: $57,532.84…Expenses: $56,509.28.) Major items of Expense were: Topics (Expense: $18,794.02…Income: $6,525.65); Executive (Expense: $4,259.73); Ratings (Expense: $7,642.50…Income; $4,182.00); U.S. Team to India (Expense: $5,850.76…Income: $585.60). The major items of Income were: Membership (Income: $24.205.80…Expense: $5,724.40); Equipment: (Income: $7,447.80…Expense: $916.78); International (Income: $4,868.05…Expense: $1,630.06). Jack says that at this point the Association has $12,863.73 in Cash.
Treasurer Carr also presents (TTT, Sept.-Oct., 1975, 11) a USTTA Budget for June 1, 1975—May 31, 1976. It projects a fiscal year General Fund Deficit of $565. (Expenses: $52,316….Income: $51,350.) Major items of Expense: Topics (Expense: $16,800…Income: $6,600—showing an intent to spend $2,000 less on the magazine); Executive: (Expense: $5,000); Ratings: Expense: $3,500—includes $500 a Topics issue ($3,000) plus other expenses ($500); International: Expense: $2,000—a big change. The major items of Income were: Membership (Income: $25,000…Expense: $8,200); Equipment: (Income: $4,000…Expense: $1500—a huge drop…why?); National’s and USOTC’s (Income: roughly $3,000).
The E.C. decided to provide a Student Membership—that’s for any person who is a student at an accredited college or university. The college or university must have an affiliated club, and the application must be made through the club and signed by the club president….Any high school student may apply by having his school principal certify he is a student. Membership fee will be the same as the junior membership fee; these members will not receive the national publication.”
Jack Carr proposed a Standing Rule: “That players be allowed to be rated from club results if they purchase a USTTA rating permit good for one year at the cost of $5.00 per adult, $2.00 per student, $1.00 per junior. The rating permit will not allow the player to participate in open or closed tournaments. The players purchasing such a permit will be supplied with a dated receipt. Credit for the permit price will be given toward a USTTA membership if the balance in the membership is paid within six months of the receipt date. Membership is then to be good from the date of the payment of the balance. Passed 5-0. Effective immediately.” Jack lists paragraphs of changes he wants under proposed bylaw changes.
Speaking of ratings, you need a magnifying glass to read the ones Rating Chair Neal Fox sent in to the July-Aug., 1975 Topics—seems he was learning to “Tweet.” That’s the name of the new University of Buffalo computer he hopes to use that will save him time and money. Meanwhile, he apologizes to “all tournament directors who have not received expected rating lists on time or at all in recent months.” There were “seasonal heavy loads of tournaments in March-May” and “disruptions in the computer services at the University of Buffalo (where the ratings are done).”
Jeff Smart presented a Coaching Report, and explains (TTT, July-Aug., 1975, 20) the Coaches Clinic he wants. “In addition to our desires to give USTTA clubs coaching funds in return for forming inter-club junior-team leagues…we need an official week-long coaching clinic for coaches to attend where they will learn how to coach professionally.” I might add that this summer Yugoslavia would hold an examination for coaches, led by National Coach Dusan “Dule” Osmanagic. Yugoslav papers made sport of Surbek’s grade—which was “Very Good,” but not “Excellent” as was the case with some other candidates.
Jeff is asking the E.C. for $2,000 plus $300 for expenses. “The $2,000 will be divided approximately in half for (1) paying the entry fees of certified coaches to a one week approved Coaches Clinic, and (2) paying clubs—those that have set up at least a 4-team, 5-man junior team league—a maximum of $100 towards having a coaching clinic given by one of our certified coaches.” Later, Jeff will conclude that “most clubs can’t hold full-week clinics, either because they can’t get enough participants or a facility [for that time period].” So he’ll propose that “any certified coach who can convince a tournament sponsor to let him (her) hold [at least a 4-table] mini-clinic just prior to, during, or after a sanctioned USTTA tournament can receive $10 per hour…up to a maximum of $50 per clinic. The clinic must be free to all tournament participants as well as to all members of the club sponsoring the tournament.”
U.S. Team Captain Boggan and ITTF Equipment Chair Rufford Harrison also presented Reports. President Disney writes (TTT, May-June, 1975, 10) that Rufford’s involved in a new way of testing equipment that “makes it possible for table tennis players to obtain a relatively simple device for measuring important ball, table, and racket properties.” With inventor Joe Ruzicka’s new Table Tennis Tester (patent pending), one can measure “ball bounce, ball balance, and ball seam quality—the latter two “determined by using the new equipment and unique testing techniques.” For example, “the ball seam quality is numerically determined by measuring the time the test equipment ball-vacuum-holding-device will hold the ball at the ball seam.” The new equipment can also measure racket resiliency.
Both at home and abroad, there’s much talk about the composition of rackets. In answer to a query in Topics, Danny Seemiller responds (July-Aug., 1975, 13):
“1. A 1-ply bat is faster than a multi-ply bat. D-J Lee, for instance, has been using a 1-ply thick Cyprus blade because he’s a spin attacker and so plays with a racket that’s almost three times as thick as mine. D-J uses this power-mass of a bat because he wants [with his spin game] as much speed as possible.
2. I play with a 5-ply Stiga bat (and of course the layers of glue alone slow the bat down). I use this multi-ply racket because I do a lot of quick blocking and countering—and I need more control than a heavy 1-ply bat would give me.
3…Just like in baseball, the heavier the bat the more power it’s capable of. But of course the heavier the bat, the harder it is to handle. Pips-out Chinese hitters use a light bat because it affords them more control. [Think particularly of Hsu Shao-fa and Li Chen-shih whom Dick Miles lauds, first, in his Feb. 24, 1975 Sports Illustrated article, “Pips for the bats of China,” then later in Topics (Mar.-Apr., 1975, 9A). Once the “Chinese stroking machines” adjust to the spin or block of their opponents, their wins, as in Calcutta, are impressive.] No wonder, too, a great hard-rubber player like Reisman, who with a light Hock bat, had and still has marvelous table control.
4. You can hit hard with a light bat (compare the terrific whip strokes of famous U.S. players Miles, Reisman, Gusikoff) or a heavy bat. But spinners like Jonyer or D-J don’t kill as often as you think. The idea, they well know, is to win the point—and they just keep spinning hard and see no need to take the chance of spectacularly smacking the ball in. The heavy-weighted racket is best for their powerful spin attacks.”
Butterfly’s Kimi Tamasu offers a chart in Topics (May-June, 1975, 7) that shows the specific rubber—pips or inverted, and the rubber’s thickness—used by the top men and women players at the recent World’s. In Calcutta, writes Rufford Harrison (TTT, Mar.-Apr., 1975, 17A), there was puzzlement over not the pips but the inverted rubber on the Chinese rackets—on Lu Yuen-sheng and Ke Hsin-ai’s rackets, to take two examples. Though Lu didn’t do well against Stipancic, when he played Surbek, in their 1st game, this World #3 Yugoslav put four consecutive serve returns into the net. And Ke, without very good-looking strokes, beat the two strong South Koreans: the attacker Lee Ailesa; and the defender Chung Hyun-sook. How did Lu and Ke do this? With tricky rubber? China’s Li Fu-jung very cooperatively allowed Harrison to inspect his racket, and certainly it was very sticky, for Rufford could press this bat down on a ball, then, lo, lift, and for a short time the ball would adhere to the racket. Questions about it there were, but this racket was deemed quite legal.
Just as the Chinese had played Matches with Japan last year, so they did again this year—and again the ties, in the spirit of Friendship, were very close. Chinese Coach Chuang Chia-fu (TTT, Mar.-Apr., 1975, 25A; 27A) had spoken of “new improvements in the major techniques of Service, Receive, Fast Attack, Loop, etc.” For example: “long and short serve placements and variations in spin; more variety in ways of receiving; light and heavy drives for fast attackers; and looping with or without spin, etc.” Japan’s Mitsuru Kohno, now World #4, had won a strong May, 1974 tournament in Peking that had featured the Swedes and the Yugoslavs, in addition to the Chinese, Japanese, and North Koreans (Pak Yong Sun, destined to be the 1975 World Champion, was undefeated in the Women’s—beat China’s Chang Li, then Hu Yu-lan). Kohno had won the Men’s “due largely to his improved ability and higher percentages in attacking topspin and downspin shots with the backhand and forehand, thus gaining the initiative. Increased attack play is key to today’s victories. Furukawa, for example, though a defensive player, has “thoroughly practiced sudden counterattacking with chopping.” Both spin and speed are essential—Europeans particularly have shown progress in these two areas.
In the 1975 China-Japan Matches, the players are supposedly preparing for the Birmingham, England World’s, though, except for Liang, China’s best men are conspicuously absent. China played: Liang Ko-liang, Lu Yuan-sheng, Ku Chen Chiang, Lu Chi Wei, and Liao Fu Min, and Japan played (their best except for Tasaka and Maehara): Kohno, Takashima, Furukawa, Hasegawa, Nakanada, Inoue, and Abe. Men’s results: China 3—Japan 3. In the Women’s, too, China held back players we’d see on their winning Team in Birmingham—they played Chu Hsian-yun, Ke Hsian Ai, Cheng Huai-ying, Li Shu-ying, and Sun Ming. Japan played Edano, Yokota, Ono, Ohzeki (none of whom would be in the World Top 40 after the ’77 World’s). Women’s results: China 4—Japan 2 (three of China’s wins were 4-3 friendly).
An article in the May 11, 1975 N.Y. Times by Dr. Howard M. Newburger, a New York psychoanalyst (see TTT, Sept.-Oct., 1975, 32), warns that an American athlete who’s been weaned on “murder the opposition,” who, after his private competitive struggle is looking to exult, to cast triumphant “arms reaching heavenward,” may be unnerved on facing China’s “Friendship First, Competition Second” stance. No American-like show of individual accomplishment will come from the Chinese. But don’t think, if they want to win, each individual won’t be trying his/her best. A Chinese player’s “feelings of personal worth have nothing to do with his success as an individual”; on the contrary, he “feels an acute responsibility for the success of the team”—indeed, for the success of China. And since psychologists say that such “strong team cohesiveness enormously enhances individual performance,” American athletes must not think for a moment that their Chinese opponents ever lack fight, must themselves be ever ready to get “up” for the competition.
Li Fu-jung, who’ll Captain the Chinese men at Birmingham, was certainly being friendly. He encouraged Topics and other t.t. publications to use his “How To Handle The Loop” article as translated into English by N.C. Tong (Mar.-Apr., 1975, 25A). Li distinguishes between the high arcing loop (strong topspin, slow speed) and the forward diving loop (travels faster, has a low trajectory). He tells you how to attack these different loops, depending on whether the ball comes to your forehand (where you smack it) or to your backhand (where you aggressively jab-block it). Also, he indicates what to do against these loop variations if you’re a chopper. Meanwhile, the Mar.-Apr. Topics is showing, with Carl Danner’s commentary, Chui Fan Liu’s sequence shots of Bengtsson’s loop that successfully sets him up for the kill (28A).
Loop…Zoop. Bob Barns of the New Jersey Club (TTT, Mar.-Apr., 1975, 27A) dotes on his creative addition to the t.t. lexicon. For Bob, “Zoop” is the best way of describing “the forehand drive with heavy topspin.” He explains:
“This elegant and appealing term is simply a portmanteau word derived from ‘a loop with lots of zip,’ or a ‘zippy loop,’ hence, a ‘zoop.’ As proposed here, ‘zoop’ may be either a noun (plural ‘zoops’) or a regular verb whose principal parts are ‘zoop,’ present tense; ‘zooped,’ past; and ‘zooped’ for the past participle. Adverbial forms such as ‘zooply’ and ‘zoopish’ are to be discouraged as being slightly strained. ‘Zooper,’ as in ‘He’s a stupid zooper,’ is acceptable, but the construction ‘He zoops at the stupidest times’ should be substituted, at least in formal writing. The past tense and the past participle should be pronounced ‘zoupt,’ not ‘zoup-ed,’ except perhaps in Great Britain and the Crown Colonies. The gerund is, of course, ‘zooping.’…”
If used, its uniqueness, says Bob, who’s rather unique himself, would give it instant sports recognition—and certainly our Sport needs that.
In an article by Nanash Ghosh that originally appeared in The Calcutta Statesman, former Hungarian World Champion Ferenc Sido also had comments on the new Chinese rubber. He said “that even when the Chinese hit the ball hard, no one could hear the shot” because of the unusual “softness of the rubber surface.” This, said Sido, “puzzled the opponent, who is kept guessing about the intensity of the shot and cannot play confidently and makes mistakes.” Just the thing for me, said Chicago’s Joe Baltrus—that is, if it’s that “amazing” Tientsin rubber that’s “supposed to improve the chopper’s chances against even the best hitters.” Where can Joe get it? If this is the rubber Harrison and Sido are talking about, it’s manufactured and sold only in China. Which presents a problem for European coaches, since if they don’t know the exact thickness of the bat and its components, they’re at a disadvantage. At a disadvantage, too, Sido admitted, because of China’s “seriousness and dedication to the game.”
Yeah, o.k., but Dr. Michael Scott, in an article called “Duckfeathers” (TTT, Sept.-Oct., 1975, 10), one-ups the tongue-in-cheek Barns by parodying two future competitors (no, they don’t want an umpire) coming out to table 134 at, say, the 66th U.S. Open, ready to continue their deceptive strategies even as play is ostensibly to start:
“…1st Contestant: ‘I believe now I’ll use my number 8 racket with Teflon on the forehand side and steel wool on the backhand.’
2nd Contestant: ‘Wait, don’t serve! If you use that, I’ll employ my shag-rug and marshmallow paddle.’
1st Contestant: ‘Just a minute then, that tactic will necessitate my switching to my number 12 racket composed of styrofoam and compressed duckfeathers.’
2nd Contestant: ‘Wait, I want to…’
[Would they ever decide to actually start the match?.…And then what? Each
would have a bag of rackets under the table and enjoy the continuing gamesmanship?]
Buddy Melamed would tell them, and us, Hey, any racket you have is special—you need to personalize it. So “take one of those small gummed address labels (that are used on envelopes) and cut out your name and address small enough to fit on the bottom of the handle of the bat. Wet the glue and stick it on. Then take some clear fingernail polish and go over it.” Marv Plevinsky agrees with Buddy—what kind of player would Marv be without his special racket?
The E.C. approved, with Miles against and Kaminsky (about to finish out his term) abstaining, a new, experimental format for the Men’s Team Matches at the USOTC’s. As Rufford Harrison explains (TTT, July-Aug., 1975, 16), there will now be Divisions—including a First Division for the top-class players. Play in this Division will involve “just a few ties per day” for each of 8 round robin teams. These teams will have two goals: “for about half of them, the goal will be the first prize. For the other half, it will be to avoid the lower two places, since the bottom two teams will be dropped to a Second Division. [Given the (likely?) changing composition of teams from one year to another, will such a relegation work?]
The idea is to have all of the teams, except the First Division ones, represent “some clear entity.” Could be a club, a city, a county, a state. A team in the First Division may grab up any isolated top player “so long as the resulting team has commercial sponsorship to some degree (as evidenced, say, by a uniformly dressed team). The strength of the possibly 5-man team will be decided by the combined ratings of the three highest-rated players. No comparable Divisions will be established for Women (not enough players) or for Juniors (whose teams might be very much at variance from year to year).
As we’ve seen in previous volumes, George Buben has been quite put out by the E.C., and, faced with this new USOTC format, he is again. If he’s to run the Nov. 21-23, 1975 USOTC’s at Detroit’s Cobo Hall, he insists that he and his helpers are going to do it their way so as to “give everyone [sic] a good weekend of enjoyable table tennis.” Their way is the old round robin way—which allows that for once in their life weaker entries “might get the chance to play a Top Player in a real match.” Buben says, “We will not tolerate any interference by the EC, especially after a couple of fiascos they condoned.” George feels that everyone who plays in his tournaments “should have to abide by the same set of rules and standards.” That means no First Division play for a select few, no special emphasis on top players. And perhaps no prize money—“we cannot take it from our Entry Fees as we lost money in our last two tournaments doing this.” If we don’t have prize money, “we will award trophies just like in the ‘Good Ole Days.’” So, says George to the Topics readers, that’s the way it’s gonna be. “Please let me hear from all of you. What do you think?”
Buben’s point of view, as might be expected, was bluntly criticized by Boggan:
“What do I think?…You really want to know?
…You don’t seem to see any value in CHANGE—in trying to make the game a professional sport in this country. You want to go back to the ‘Good Ole Days’ of the ‘60’s. But in point of fact you’ve never been anywhere else. Deep down, you still are and always have been in that Cobo Hall basement of yours.
You’re an amateur, George—committed to a U.S. Open Amateur Team Championship. Each player, regardless of his ability, is as one to you….It’s as if you assume there will be no spectators watching the matches (because there never have been), and therefore why not allow the most amateur of players on the 108th team to jokingly compete against the most professional of players on the 1st team? All’s one. Where’s the harm?
…[I] urged Rufford Harrison to work out a new format for the USOTC’s…[because] I want to see professional table tennis in this country. I want good players to be able to make a living out of the Sport they love. And therefore I don’t want to see U.S. Open tournaments run by people committed to amateur play—people who don’t want any controversies, problems, answers to questions raised.
No doubt you, George, and any 500 people 500-1000 points behind you in the Ratings, would enjoy playing Danny Seemiller or D-J Lee—just as no doubt if you and those 500 people liked to play golf you’d enjoy a round with Johnny Miller or Jack Nicklaus. It’s always nice for the amateurs to get a thrill of a lifetime by playing with the professionals. But of course in golf only a select few, only the best, are allowed to play with the pros, especially in a U.S. Open Championship. True, in a Pro-Am before the actual tournament starts, many pros do play with amateurs—but in every case the amateurs are expected to pay, one way or another, for the privilege. Otherwise, the tournament has no class, no dignity.
…It really is demeaning for Danny Seemiller and everything he stands for that’s possible in our Sport to go out there in that Cobo Hall basement and for a cheap team-trophy play a very middle-aged man, who doesn’t look like an athlete for the very good reason that he isn’t one, who’s not dressed in playing shorts, and who, because he has such poor strokes, could expect to score only a few points from Danny.
The only thing that’s more ridiculous is for this opponent to think that Danny—or any other good player—would be playing a real match against him. It’s not even a question of why Danny should play seriously against this person. It’s a question of how could he. And if the point is to let this pot-bellied enthusiast go back to his friends and say something like, “Hey, I got 16 from Seemiller the 2nd game,” well, it’s just stupid.
And of course it’s not just one match like that in the old USOTC format that professional players like Danny have been subjected to, but a whole day’s worth of preliminary matches.**
…[George,] you think a better player is out of line if he doesn’t suffer with a smile Mr. Average Player. A real “top” player, you imply, is first and foremost a good sport, friendly, social. For, after all, deep down, that’s very much how you conceive of your enjoyable USOTC tournament weekend—as a social gathering….”
SELECTED NOTES.
*In grading Qualified Umpire exams, Mal was astonished to see 4 pages worth of two sets of identically typed answers, one from Virginia and one from Maryland. What the hell is this? Someone’s xeroxing-off answers and selling them to applicants? On Jan. 21, 1975, Mal writes Disciplinary Chair Michael Scott:
“…Naturally I am going to flunk both these people. And make sure they never are allowed to become USTTA umpires, since I don’t want cheats for umpires. The problem is finding out who typed up the original. At present I’m not going to send answers to the two cheats, or tell anyone else about the situation—I want to see how many other people will send me this set of answers. If a lot of people do, and are presented with the evidence, one of them may name the mastermind. If we catch him, I want you to consider having him suspended. I’ll also ask you to recommend to the E.C. that the people who cheat be placed on a list of people who can never become umpires.”
By Mar. 26, Mal hasn’t gotten any more of these sets of answers, nor has he had any inquiries from the two candidates in question. He decides it’s time to confront them via Disciplinary Chair Scott. Mike dutifully writes them, tells them the accusations. Each is shocked and hastens to explain. Turns out that, though they’re from different states, they work together, play table tennis daily at work, both are officers in their local club and go to tournaments together. They also researched and did the exam together, then had one of the wives type up their answers.
Oh.
**Fred Danner has been sharing with me his unpublished Memoirs, in which he shows again and again his longtime labor-of-love immersion as both a player and official in the Sport. Very deservingly, he’s been inducted into the USTTA Hall of Fame. However, I take issue with the way he views this Buben vs. Boggan controversy, or, as he puts it, “the philosophical differences between those who promoted amateur table tennis events and those who couldn’t care less about the average player.” I think I’ve shown for decades, and in these History volumes I’m writing that I care about the average player. Fred also says that I “wanted the format for play in important events to completely separate the Danny Seemillers from the pot-bellied amateurs. After all, why should the elite players have to play endless preliminary rounds against amateur players who don’t deserve to play them.” Though this has in fact become routine thinking for our U.S. major events, that wasn’t my argument. I was specifically talking about the many weak matches such a player as Danny was forced to play at the USOTC’s, not the one or two he’d normally play at single-elimination tournaments, and that I wasn’t objecting to. Fred then follows with the twist, “Now we don’t even want amateurs in our tournaments. That would eliminate 90% of existing or potential players in our country.” Does Fred, or those readers who’ve followed the various stages of my career, seriously think that’s what I was advocating? Fred’s thoughts, like anyone else’s, like my own, sometimes need correctives.