Is Olympics unfair

Table Tennis Discussion

Last updated 1 month ago

eugene lu

eugene lu Asked 1 month ago

Hi Ping skills, 

Sometimes I find Olympics to be the most unfair sporting event where it may not necessarily deserve all the prestige. Yes the Olympic gold is considered the highest achievement any athletes can achieve but the level of play is questionable. 

Firstly, they don't select the best players to play. They only select the best two from one country which means other very strong players from a particular nation doesn't get to play and you certainly will not see the top 32 players in the world participate at the Olympics. 

On the other hand you got players from world regions where table tennis standards isn't as high but they have produced "5-time Olympian". But this particular Olympian when participating in normal WTT events might not even clear the qualifying round and may even lose to a lot of players who will never get the chance to play in the Olympics. 

For me I feel like the Olympic medal is only valuable because it's every four years. I don't think the level is any higher than any other regular events where you have all the absolute top ranks in the world competing. 

Alois Rosario

Alois Rosario Answered 1 month ago

Hi Eugene,

You bring up a thoughtful point about the qualification and representation system at the Olympics, particularly in table tennis. It is true that the rules limiting the number of participants from each country can prevent some of the world's top players from competing because only a maximum of two players per gender from each country can participate in the singles events. This rule was primarily implemented to promote a more global representation and prevent domination by any single country, even though it might indeed compromise the level of competition somewhat. As for athletes from regions where table tennis is not as competitively fierce, the Olympic Games aim to be inclusive, encouraging participation from a diverse range of countries. This inclusivity is part of the broader Olympic spirit, which values the coming together of athletes from across the world more than just sheer competitiveness. It's about balancing elite performance and global participation. While it is accurate that the Olympic table tennis competition might not always feature the top 32 players based on world rankings, this does not necessarily make the competition any less prestigious or the achievements any less commendable. Winning an Olympic medal requires athletes to perform under the unique pressures of representing their country on the world's biggest sporting stage, often making it a different kind of challenge compared to regular tours and championships.

Athletes often prepare for years or even their entire careers to compete in the Olympics, adding to the weight and the prestige of an Olympic medal. So while your observation about the level of play is valid to a certain extent, the value of the Olympic Games often transcends pure technical rankings, embodying broader values such as cultural exchange, personal excellence, and global unity. These aspects combine to maintain the high regard in which Olympic achievements are held, both by athletes and spectators around the world.

Notify me of updates
Add to Favourites
Back to Questions

Thoughts on this question


D K Posted 1 month ago

I have read somewhere that the 2-per-nation rule was imposed because China kept flooding Olympics with their players and won them by basically outnumbering players from other nations. (fr example there was 20 Chinese players out of the 32).
Unsure if it is true,but it would make sense to make sucha rule then.

Alois Rosario

Alois Rosario from PingSkills Posted 1 month ago

If they had the top 32 players in the world then it would be currently 7 Men and 7 Women.


D K Posted 1 month ago

That would still enable them to have at least semifinals 100% chinese.

Become a free member to post a comment about this question.