London 2012 table tennis: With Olympic gold, China's Zhang earns table tennis grand slam

London 2012 table tennis: China has dominated play, winning the gold and silver medals in both men's singles Thursday, and women's singles Wednesday.

Sergei Grits/AP
London 2012 table tennis: Zhang Jike of China, serves against Wang Hao of China, during the gold medal men's singles table tennis match August 2, in London. Zhang was the winner of the match, and with his Olympic gold medal now has a table tennis grand slam.

The Chinese have dominated Olympic table tennis since its introduction into the Olympic Games in 1988, and London has been no exception. China picked up two more medals Thursday in men's singles.

Zhang Jike walked away from a high-tension match against countryman Wang Ho with the gold medal and a table tennis grand slam. Zhang has now won Olympic gold, a world championship and a world cup. 

It was a blow for Wang, who took the silver. Wang, from the city of Changchun, was the more experienced player, and was also looking for the grand slam. He is a world cup winner three times over, in 2007, 2008, and 2010, and also won the world championships in 2009.

Zhang, from Shandong Province, recently hit the table tennis world stage, working his way up into a top 25 ranking in 2010, and then winning the 2011 world championship and the 2011 world cup. 

Wednesday's women's gold medal individual match was another duel between two Chinese players. Li Xiaoxia overtook No. 1 ranked Ding Ning, 4-1, to win the gold medal.

The four medals earned by the Chinese men and women in singles events add to China's already impressive total of table tennis medals. Prior to this Olympic Games, China had won 41 medals, 20 gold, 13 silver, and 8 bronze in table tennis. Since 1992, at least one Chinese player has medalled in every event.

On Thursday, Dimitrij Ovtcharov, from Germany, defeated Chuan Chih-Yuan from Taiwan, 4-2, to win the bronze medal. 

Table tennis team finals will begin on August 7, with the women's medal matches.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to