Interesting article, but from the way it is worded I am
not entirely convinced that John has indeed returned
to sponge. The article talks about John's previous play
in hardbat events, and the high hardbat rating he achieved.
What it doesn't mention is that John has ALSO been playing
in sponge events all this time, using his hardbat, and
maintaining a very respectable "sponge" rating (albeit with
hardbat) of about 2300... not as high as his hardbat-vs-hardbat
rating, but the highest such rating achieved in the U.S.
with a hardbat against sponge.

I suspect this may have been another sponge event for John
in which he used his hardbat. Knowing John somewhat, I'm not
surprised to hear of him entering a sponge event - but if
he were to actually use a sponge bat, it would be a bit of a
surprise considering how outspoken he has been on the subject
over the past 30 years. Also, watching him play hardbat
against sponge - his style of play retains most of his
sponge training... so it would be easy to mistake his
play as that of a sponge player. And he uses one of the
more spinny hardrubbers - Yasaka Cobolt I believe.

Some U.S. players who were fulltime hardbatters but returned
to sponge include: Thanh Nguyen, Larry Hodges, Bruce Liu,
Sonny Bradley, Lobo Lin, John Franicevich, Danny Hill,
Jonathon Adams, and Jose Bulatao.


--- In hardbat@yahoogroups.com, "Francis LEIBENGUTH"
<francisdef54@...> wrote:
>
> We often hear or read about players who decided one day to turn to
> permanent hardbat play (I'm one of them), generally explaining
that they
> where fed up with sponge, have better sensations with hardbat,
etc...
> But I just found a link
> (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/samsteiner/2006Tourn.htm
>
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/samsteiner/2006Tourn.htm> )
> where I learnt that John Tannehill turned back to sponge
apparently last
> year.
> So here's my question : maybe there are other members of this
group that
> make the same decision (to turn or turn back to sponge), so can you
> explain why to us ? And if John Tannehill reads this forum, can he
give
> us his answer ? Thanks in advance.
>