What's your issue with the word "expert"? The guy was trying to land in the top 250 in a year. That would comfortably place him in the "expert" player category (had he succeeded).
I think expert here is dependent on different people's perspective.
My credibility: I had over a 2000+ USATT rating 8 years ago, was #1 under 18 in Texas, top 10 under 18 in USA. I trained in China (WuHan and Shanghai) for 2 summers at my peak. My training buddy and archrival is currently the USA national champion - Timothy Wang, originally from Houston who quit highschool to pursue the sport professionally in Europe.
The kid from my perspective is still an enthusiast (my perspective). Granted, he's playing tournaments and learning but there's another huge gap between where he is now and an "expert" or "pro" in the US.
There's yet another HUGE gap between the #1 in the USA and top 250 or "expert" in the world. Timothy went to the Olympics in 2008 and lost in his first match to a 14 year old from Korea: 4-0. The "expert" skill and experience difference is vastly different and is just a moniker that is being used in his marketing. =)
To get to where he is at in a year is commendable and definitely takes dedication - to get to an "expert" simply takes time and playing hundreds if not thousands of different players at tournaments, leagues, etc...
My father is the #1 senior TT player in the US based on the last senior olympics open in 2014. He is in his mid 60's and still poses a commendable challenge to the top 250 players in the US simply due to his play style, experience, and racquet/paddle (pips out and pen hold) - not saying he always wins the match, but he can typically take a couple games out of 7. Experts/pros adjust much quicker.
Anyhoo, table tennis is a great sport with little to no risk of getting a life threatening injury. It is relatively cheap and provides an amazing workout when played at the "enthusiast" level.
Love that he's bringing more awareness to the sport. It is under appreciated and typically exists in the Forest Gump/Balls of Fury/frat houses of the world.
I totally agree that this guy did not actually reach expert status. You're correct in labeling him an enthusiast. I think, though, if he'd hit his goal of ranking in the top 250 for England, there'd be a compelling argument for considering him an expert.
At some point, "expert" status necessarily comes down to a subjective and somewhat arbitrary line between players that are very close in skill. Are the top 10 experts? Top 100? Top 1000? If you're comparing to the average Joe, all of these could probably be considered experts. If you're only considering the elite of the elite, then maybe only the top 10 get that classification.
If you look at the NFL, there are almost 1700 players. Obviously these guys cannot all fit into even the top 1000 ranking. Yet all of them are generally considered to be elite players (or they wouldn't retain employment), and they're all being paid over $400K/year for their skills. Arguably, all of these guys are experts at what they do.
Or look at doctors. There are about 300 cardiothoracic surgeons in the US and Canada. You could rank these doctors and come up with a list and arbitrarily say that the top ten are the experts in cardiac surgery. But they are all experts, relative to not only the general population, but to the population of practicing physicians.
"I totally agree that this guy did not actually reach expert status. You're correct in labeling him an enthusiast."
You are such a hypocrite. If you are 250 in England it does not give you a compelling argument to consider yourself an expert at this SPORT unless there are 250 players from England, who are ranked in ITTF.
I guarantee you that a person, who is in top 50 in England is not even close in skill to the one, who is 250. In any sport there are "experts", who can teach the skill very well. They might not even be really good at this sport. Tons of amazing football coaches haven't been that good at football.
Expert in playing (competing) in any sport is the one who can prove not with his ranking but through his match averages against top 50, top 100, top 200 players in a certain sport. As I already mentioned, ranking system is completely flawed, especially for the bottom tier players.
Seriously, you are talking about doctors? Doctors receive very similar in the US (standardized) training and they don't spent 1 year to be an "expert". How about 12 years for cardio surgery? And, yes, all doctors are experts at what they do.
In what way am I a hypocrite? Either you're confused about the meaning of that word or you're just throwing out insults now.
You need to let go of the belief that you own the definition of "expert". Firstly, you've been unable to even define what "expert" means to you. Secondly, others clearly don't agree with you on what "expert" means. There is no universal standard for what constitutes an expert. It's a subjective call. If you think that only the top 50 people worldwide are experts in table tennis, I guess that's fine, but you should perhaps be a bit less hostile about it.
I do find it odd that you say all doctors are experts. This is a strangely liberal application of the term "expert" given that you're so stingy with the term as applied to table tennis. There are 10 thousand medical experts in England but not 250 table tennis experts? It must be damned hard to become a table tennis expert.
Do we judge an "expert" on their ranking or on their knowledge and ability? If 50,000 people excelled to the level of the current #250, would only that best player be an expert, or could all 50,000 be considered to have excellent domain knowledge and ability? I'd call all of them experts.
Expert and "highly ranked" or "best" don't necessarily need to be the same thing.
Many of us get termed software experts or design experts or IT experts without any ranking systems.
My issues is that top 250 in England doesn't make you an expert of table tennis. It makes ok at table tennis. It might give a privilege to say that I am an expert at table tennis in England but definitely not within the sport itself.
Ben Larcombe, the author of this wonderful piece, is not an expert at table tennis either. Can he teach someone to be an expert? Maybe, he can, but as a player he is not.
"My England ranking varies from about 150th – 200th depending on how I’m getting on at tournaments. My long-term goal is to get myself into the top 100 players in England."
This quote means that he claims to be an expert at table tennis because reaching top 250 is an "expert" level. Out of 1000 people who are ranked.
What constitutes an expert in your opinion? There are some 2.4 million people playing table tennis in the UK[1], so the top 250 is pretty elite. Just looking at membership in Table Tennis England, there are nearly 25 thousand players[2], making 250 the top 1% of people who care enough about the sport to spend money becoming a member. I'd call that expert. It's certainly not just "ok at table tennis".
I play table tennis so I guess it constitutes me as a table tennis player. In order to become a member of England Table Tennis Association you just have to pay a fee. They don't check whether you even can hold a racquet or not. So out of people who pay the fee it makes you "elite". But out of 1000 people who are ranked it makes you average even in England.
Don't get me wrong. I am all for these experiments and finding out that you don't have to work on a skill for 10,000 hours to be an expert, but, please, don't say that 250 in England is an expert at table tennis. It is just a lie.
If you're in the top 250 out of 1000, that doesn't make you average. By definition it's well above average. Moreover, the 1000 ranked players do not represent the continuum of players overall. They are all significantly better than the actual average, which is why they are ranked.
Great spin off on the word average here. It makes you average at table tennis. But we are talking about being an "expert". So 250 in England does not make you an expert at table tennis. Also if you knew what you were talking about then you would know that if I want to get ranking ( just for the ranking sake) I would craft my schedule in a way so I play weak tournaments just to get ranking. Ranking and expertise correlation is very flawed. Ask any athlete about this and they will tell you that there are a lot of players that would play weak tournaments just to get ranking. They would be even top 50 in the country but it doesn't make them experts.
