Hi all,

Just a thought that, whilst sitting here, crept into my mind. Would the world champ player of say the 1980's be able to compete with the world champs today? Technique is emphasised alot and practice of things like 'shadow' and split stepping is even more common.
So, with all the development to the present day, would the world champs in their peak in say the 80's (a doubles pair), be able to keep up with the speed of say Ha/Kim due to the change in theory etc.

Matt

I've noticed that today's players are bigger and stronger and they have the advantage of the latest badminton technology. Today's game centers a lot around power and so the game has evolved at the fundamental level. Notice how nearly all international level MS or MD players will do jump-smashes today while that statement can only be said for perhaps the elite bunch of yesteryears.

As a contrast, I made a statement in the "badminton videos" thread that the players of the 80's and 90's seemed more graceful and fluid-like, because their games did not center completely on power. Also, those players did not have Ultimum-Ti, or Muscle Power technology, etc. in their rackets.

If all variables were kept the same (ie. same rackets, shoes), then I would think the best players of yesterday can beat the best of today. Li Yong Bo/Tian Bing Yi in their prime would definitely slaughter the current crop of Chinese MD players. similarly, I believe Zhao Jian Hua/Yang Yang could match Chen Hong/Xia Xuan Ze. Regarding Kim/Ha, I don't think they can beat their predecessors, Park Joo Boon/Kim Moon Soo.

What do others think?

Can't say I know much about men's doubles but I can make a bold statement

in ladies singles.

I think the ladies singles in 80's in the form of Li Ling Wei, Han Ai Ping,

and 90's with Ye Zhao Ying and Camilla are much more skillfull than present with all

their advantages. All four had wide range of strokes and could smash as well as

the men.Can't see much to shout about in ladies' singles nowadays.

Even in ladies doubles, Li Ying and Wu Dixi/Guan Wei Zhen could smash harder

than the players today who appear to play a carefully calculated game to outlast

opponents and make minimum mistakes.

Anyway when I find the time I will add some more rare videos to SWJ's site to back

my statements.

Keep an eye out for the 1980 game between Liem Swie King vs Han Jian,

it is a case of outlasting an opponent by conserving energy for the final dash.

It is also the 1st time LSK was beaten for several years and the first time he lost his

temper in a match by chucking his racquet in disgust.

The 1982 match between Liem Swie King vs Misbun is also a classic of how not to

play oneself to exhaustion but to leave some gas for the final surge.

I think SWJ is going to post in his site after they are converted.

The players of the early eighties would not be at the top now. Even with the modern rackets their game and fitness would not be on a par with todays top players. That is not to say that if those players could come through again today, given access to modern training, techiques, rackets, competition etc those players wouldn't still make it to the top since they were undoubtedly great champions.

If you look at the early eighties the mens doubles was a totally different game, English and Scottish pairs were world class, the game was relatively slow and fitness was not well developed. When PJB, Sideks, BingYi/Yong Bo came onto the scene the game was revolutionised and England were suddenly nowhere. Park remained at the top for a long time. Even when he came back from retirement in 93/96 he was better than ever. He would possibly have matched Ricky/Rexy at their peak even though they came through a decade later. Even since then the game has gone up in speed again. So I think while a few of the greats were ahead of their time and could match the next generation the general standard has risen very sharply and your average player of 20 years ago would be totally outpaced in todays game.

In general with modern training techniques/rackets giving the players such great speed and power the game has lost some of its charm. Similarly in tennis people fail to appreciate the brilliance of Sampras and talk about the skill of McEnroe etc, there just isn't the time nowadays to play the more graceful game and players now are packed with muscle , meaning their movement, although faster, isn't as graceful. Compare a distance runner with a sprinter, the runner looks more easy/graceful than the sprinter!

In singles I can imagine Morton Frost bridging the generation gap best, since he could play the game in different ways and was mentally so strong. Even the singles game is so much faster now and the net area is played very differently, in the eighites we saw a lot of shot played from below the tape, net exchanges etc, now we see everything taken much early, flicked around the court, many driving exchanges etc.

Could certainly be true, but badminton is a game of ehdurance and stamina.

With increased speed and fitness how many players can play at the same pace

for 2-3 sets?

Poul Erik Larsenn himself once remarked that the only player he knew of who could

play at the same pace and speed throughout was Dai Yun. What I'm trying to say is

that it is not so much how fit one is , it is rather how one distributes energy use.

The 2003 Ae final between Chen Hong and Hafiz would be a good eg, one played

himself to a standstill whilst another conserved for the final push. In fact Hafiz,

Roslin, Taufik are best egs of how they pace themselves in a game to pip

opponents at the tape.Same thing occured when Hafiz bt Bao in T Cp

and with many matches involving Taufik and Chinese players.

Just crossed my mind.When various people assert that players today are faster

than those in the past, have they actually seen past players in action?

Download and watch the 1980 match which also includes 10 minutes of a doubles

match between Tjun Tjun and Ade Chandra vs Sun Zhian and Yao Xi Ming,

then decide wheteher there is any doubles player today faster than the famous

Tjun Tjun of the 70's.

Seems like this issue also cropped up in Badders where someone was quick to

belittle coaching skills of players from the 80's.

Originally posted by Bbn
Just crossed my mind.When various people assert that players today are faster

than those in the past, have they actually seen past players in action?

Download and watch the 1980 match which also includes 10 minutes of a doubles

match between Tjun Tjun and Ade Chandra vs Sun Zhian and Yao Xi Ming,

then decide wheteher there is any doubles player today faster than the famous

Tjun Tjun of the 70's.

Seems like this issue also cropped up in Badders where someone was quick to

belittle coaching skills of players from the 80's.

But they'll have to wait a while before that match is converted though! I've passed about 15 tapes to Mini Me to encode.

PS: Did you receive my latest email?

Hmmmm.... A very interesting topic here..... I maybe young to know any of the 70s or even some of the 80s (was only a baby in the 80s then) but watching videoclips of the stuff including more recent ones lately, badminton has really changed itself.

If not mistaken, it was Yang Yang who broke the laws of badminton and made it a fast pace racket sport - before that it was Morten Frost who ruled badminton and it was just the plain clearings before one person mentally loses their concentration that then they start attacking. After Yang Yang, everyone was going for speed. Now it's seem to be speed and a lot of smashes - particularly in doubles match.

To be able to constantly smash so much and yet maintain the stamina and speed sounds impossible when it is possible.

*Better get back to training really....*

I believe it wasn't Yang Yang who changed the modern game,

I think it was Zhao Jian Hua in 1985 when he introduced a new drive game

and whipped Liem Swie King and edged Morten Frost in the All England.

But I Frost learnt quick and I don't think he ever lost to Zhao again after that.

DLP is right about Frost and I believe he is complete enough to hold his own

against any player in any age, I don;t think even Gade can come close to him.

You know experts once said that Mike Tyson at his peak couldn't even hit Mohamad

Ali's backside.

I think the player who bridged 80's and 90's was Poul Erik Hoyer Larsenn,when he

appeared in late 80's he was too fast even for YY and Zhao, but I believe speed

isn't everything and that players with exceptional skills and stipp pip faster players.

Then again sometimes I watch the 1983 World Champs finals and I see Liem SK

and Icuk smashing thru 3 sets non-stop and wonder,

Perhaps it's possible to maitain a fast pace in doubles but not singles.

IMHO present will always be better in the idea that
1. we learn from the past.
2. things and equiptment gets better that will give us more advantage or leverage.
If two person (one from the past other from the present) equal in everyway but one is using a wooden racket and string and the other is using a Ti-10 with titanium string i think the latter will have an advantage over the other.
3. new methods and ideas that enhances game play keeps popping around.

maybe that's why old world records are being broken again and again by the newer generations. and that shows we keep on improving, enhancing, evolving to be better than our predesessors.

True but speed and equipment is not eveything in badminton.

I still remember Jim Hines clocking 9.98s in 100 m in 1968, how many people can do

it today ? .

Will you say that players like Pele,George Best or Maradonna can't fit into today's

clubs?

Men's doubles are different it was changed by the Koreans to sth like TT, one day

someone will discover someway to nullify their advantage in speed.

We're talking about MAJORITY of the world players here... not a few isolated incident.

there are still only a handful of old records that hasn't been broken yet, but be sure sooner or later it will, like all the rest. coz that's where the road goes.

Originally posted by Matt Ross
Hi all,

Just a thought that, whilst sitting here, crept into my mind. Would the world champ player of say the 1980's be able to compete with the world champs today? Technique is emphasised alot and practice of things like 'shadow' and split stepping is even more common.
So, with all the development to the present day, would the world champs in their peak in say the 80's (a doubles pair), be able to keep up with the speed of say Ha/Kim due to the change in theory etc.

Matt
-

Correct me if I am wrong ...

Morten is one badminton luckiest players, because he is allowed to take an asthma medicine by IBF that can actually boost his stamina.

I believe the past and the present are only different in their playing style ... as for the quality ... i guess they are just the same.

Hi SWJ,

I'not a fan of Morten but fair's fair.

Morten was the first licensed player .

Without any aid in the 80's with the help of equipment sponsors

he toured round the world and played in practically every tournament and managed

to enter at least semis of most of the tournaments. I think he only faded because of

age.I think he was the world's first millionaire player in badminton,and is the perfect

model for aspiring European players.

i don't know if you've seen Rudy Hartono, his net play could put you in 3s adn 4s,

I don;t think he has a peer in this dept. except maybe Hendrawan, or Zhao.

BBN,

Agree with you that Morten is a very hard working players and he started from bottom.

model for aspiring European players.

hopefully ... for all players around the world. bbn, how about Paul Erick? i dont know why there is no Asian players above 35 who still compete internationally (past & present)

If i recall correctly, Morten was under training in Indonesia sometimes in 80s ... During the time in which Indonesian Team had never expected that Morten could beat their National Hero at All England ... but Morten did ... He won the All England by beating Indonesian Player ... (I forgot who the player was, was he Lim Swee King?).

In my opinion and only my opinion ... Can't see any current player with overall skills compared with the older ones. BBN talks about Rudy Hartono. And who watched Tang Xian Fu, Hou Jia Chang play? Tang's excellent technique and strategy is a delight for who had chance to see. Hou's speed, reflexes and counter-attacks are unique - inviting his opponents to attack by sending the shuttles half-court.

Zhao Jian Hua had physical problems and was never the same after the Calgary World Championships. He was one of the best in the last 20 years, if not the best. Evidence is the game (in badminton city) against Liem Swie King and think at that time he was about 18. Watch how he plays and compare with the current top players. Probably Bao Chun Lai and Taufik are the closest ones in terms of skills.

True, badminton has changed. Players try to play faster - getting fitter, running faster, smashing harder. Is that really the way the game should go I don't know. Now wonder how old players like Fung Permadi, Hendrawan was able to stay at top playing their 'slow' and un-agressive game.

And in my opinion, neither Fung Permadi nor Hendrawan can compare, technically speaking with Zhao JianHua, Rudy Hartono, or Hou Jia Chang or Tang Xian Fu.

It's debatable to say who was/is the best badminton player. Zhao Jian Hua was very good indeed but I still think Yang Yang was better only because he won all four grand slam titles whilst no one else has yet - or have they?? :confused:

I heard that Morton is now with Yang Yang's and Zhao Jian Hua's training camp, help training young potential badminton players...

*Why do I happen to hear all these unusual stuff now?? Or are they true.....*

So interesting this thread.

I vote that Han Aiping could easily keep up with the current ladies singles players.

Hendrawan is a very interesting player indeed. His net is really very good. But what is interesting is how he can change pace of the game. Against Peter Gade, he literally plays faster than P Gade in the first few points.

Zhao got pneumonia before the 1985 WC in Calgary.

Morten Frost? which other players have appeared in the WC twice? Morten's footwork is technically very good. Very smooth and change of pace is superb

When I see people say that past skills were superior I am slightly dubious. It is difficult to define skill but the pressure on every shot is so much greater now. Competition is a survival of the fittest, tactically as well as physically, if players nowadays could be playing slower and winning then surely we would see someone doing that.


Zhao is probably my all time favourite player to watch, but even then a whole generation have come through taking the best of his innovations , so standards push ever higher. I think there a lot more potentially dangerous players at the worlds than in the eighties. Any of the players from Denmark, China , Malaysia, Indonesia, Korea could beat any other in the first round, plus the new countires like Singapore.

Remember in the eighties the worlds was only every fourth year and there were no olympics, yet still, Frost, YY, Zhao emerged as all time greats. I think we will be unlikely to see anyone retaining a world singles title now even over two years, such is the competition.

Recently during an interview Hafiz was asked which were the players he hoped to

avoid in worlds.

His reply was Taufik and Gade because they were very experienced and could read

the game well.

Many players tend to play a stereo typed game and allow more savy players to lead

them like mules,play to their rhythm.

I' m sure players today have to play faster since shuttles travel faster with better

racquets and also require faster footwork to get behind the shuttle.

But evey few years there emerge some rare players like Sun Jun, Taufik, Frost etc

who have exceptional anticipation, versatility, vision of the court etc, which could

be difficult to emulate. Maybe this is called unique talent.

Zhao was different in that he could see the court differently from other players ,

Hou had eyes like a hawk, I' sure sometimes talent comes once in a blue moon,

how many guitarists can play like Eric Clapton?


That's not to say anyone is wrong,.

PS

If speed alone can determine a champion,

I vote that Lee Tsuen Seng or Bao Chun Lai will win worlds hands down in August.

Now why is that unlikely to happen?

From Chinese players point of view, skills and technique are of equal importance. That's not news. Most of modern players are more aggressive, playing a very high paced game. In my opinion, singles game can't play in a permanent high pace - similarly an athlete can't run a 400M race with a 100M pace. This the reason why a player need to be good on attack and also same in (active) defence, able to vary the game pace and upset his/her opponent rhytm. Just looking at the current crop, how many are able to do all this? Probably only 1 or 2 IMHO.

Han Ai Ping is probably the best overall skill lady player of the last 20 years. Agree that none of the current top female player could match her at her best. Another player less known, a Korean girl (17 year old at that time??), Lee Ying Suk, had beaten Han Ai Ping, Li Ling Wei and getting better of Susi Susanti in the Sudirman Cup but later betrayed by her nerves and bad coaching lost the game and never seen again in international tournaments. Felt really bad as this girl had everything to become one of the greats - speed, power, anticipation and technique.

But after looking at most of the current top players, I feel there are only more 'Chinese' style players. Download the games Zhao vs Liem and Frost vs Yang Yang; I prefer the way of the 60's - 80's. At least then the powerhouses had their style.

From my memory, Tang Xian Fu and Hou Jia Chang already played this style back in the 60's. Their speed and power are definitely not inferior - and from my view, more complete than current top players.

Transferring the same logic to football (soccer) - currently with so much money and facilities, better coaches there should not be a problem mass producing Maradonas, Peles, Jairzinhos, Di Stefanos, Bests, etc. I see Figo (Portugal and Real Madrid) currently the best player but comparing him to Maradona...

I don't think anyone is saying that speed is the only determining factor in winning/losing now. But the fact is that it is essential to have speed nowadays to even compete at the top level, in developing juniors we have to look for players capable of moving fast on court.

Fitness levels are undoubtedly higher than ten or twenty years ago. Modern diet, medical back up and training methods mean that players at all levels are stronger , faster and trained more specifically. In addition many injuries which would have been career ending even ten years ago are now more treatable.

My point about competition being a survival of the fittest and eliminating ineffective strokes can be clearly seen in the service. In the early eighties forehand serves were common in mens doubles, when the backhand serve was seen to be more effective a whole generation came through where backhand serves were the normal, it is exceptional to see any county to international md player serving forehand now.

Backhand serving in singles has become more common, especially when playing the 5 to 7 format. Maybe in a few years the singles game will be so fast and attacking that the low bh serve will be dominant at the top level?

Womens singles, while perhaps not as appealing to the fan as in the past has developed. Look at a video of Camilla losing in the All England final in the early nineties and compare with the Camilla of today. Her game has been forced to improve in every area. Her physical strength, speed off the mark and tactics have all developed. Her range of shots and how early she takes the shuttle have also improved, together with her deception. This is how she managed to remian at the top for so long, by improvement.

I too would rather watch Zhao play Frost or YY than watch two of todays current top ten, but this is because those players remained at the top for years and repeatedly played each other in major events, so fans identified with them and a rivalry was built up. Sun Jun/Gade had such a rivalry for a short period but since then we have seen a succession of players emerging and then being overtaken.

I see your point DLP. Maybe european countries have only recently

adopted the military type training of say China, now adopted by Malaysia etc.

I think everyone is about the same standard nowadays, the diff being a lot of

players in some countries are full time pros drawing a salary whilst others are part-

timers.

Martin Dew is not wrong in implying that some players should build up their

deception etc. as a niche over and above fitness etc norms.China players especially

are favoured if they are tall and atletic but when it comes to doubles skills they are

much wanting as they seem to think that a shuttle is sth to be quickly hammered

down asap.

I was just watching Ha and Kim playing Msia, Kim is not only fit and fast but he has

an extra dimension,great racquet skill and placement ( not Pace), which could have

been developed along European traditional lines. Such skills are unmatched

elsewhere.

After looking thru the messages i think what DLP is trying to tell aspiring

young players is to work on fundamentals first ie. keep up with what the rest of the

world is doing, the basics of fitness , pace etc.

Later one can refer to history to draw inspirations on how to work on individual flair.

At the moment past stars are only of theoretical interest.

Took me some time to realise and sometimes I forget that most in the forum are

teenagers. Too bad badminton is so physical otherwise technique would dominate

as in Table-Tennis.

Badminton has been and is a game of survival of the fittest. There were many threads referring to the increasing of fitness level in the modern game. But like BBN mentioned, this could a recent(??) change of training methods in Europe. Also the advances in sports science contributed definitely to this area.

I still see some 'old timers' as better players than current top players. Granted the game changed. Like the BH short serve, it forces the defender instead of doing an 'easy smash' to decide how to attack. Having more options is not always an advantage. On the other hand the server also need to develop a better all around game - since he served short the pace is faster.

In the case of juniors, I've mentioned that one of the favourite recruiting ground in China for potential players is during the track and field competitions. Coaches look for speed, explosiveness and coordination among the young athletes. This had been done since the 60's as far as I know, and probably we now can figure out why.

Camilla is really one of the best current players. Her game is quite complete, all around improvement is noticeable - remember watching sometime ago her backhand was weaker, now she can deliver backhand baseline to baseline from a more defensive position. I may be wrong, but her pace is still a little slow otherwise she would not have a problem playing against Gong Zhichao. Having said that I still see Han Aiping, Li Lingwei as better players. Also Luo Un, current England coach(?) at her best would have no problem playing against Camilla. Don't take me wrong, Camilla is still one of the lady players I really like to watch. I enjoy watching her play more than the current Chinese top lady players.

to me, after watching the older video clips from the 80s. i think one of the contrast that i can see between old and new players is that, clinical vs. style.

looking at the recent stream of players like Chen / LeeHI / WongCH. they are all all-around players, all-around means that they can do all shots in a sense, "perfect". clears, drops, to the ground smashes, very fast and efficient movement in court. they can cover all and every part of the court like it was programmed to. however, when they do that, they are borderline mechanical. in a way, their movements and shots are so precise, it seems to have robbed away the beauty. not beauty in the way that they are so precise, and beauty in the way that somehow i feel that they lack the style.

when you go back to the players back in the 80s. different players have their own styles, you can see the difference between Han Jian / Frost / Liem / YY / Zhao. their styles are unique. but their movement and shots aren't neccessarily as precise and clinical as the current players.

but i am not to say that there are no current players with style of their own. i think Taufik has style, Gade also, but less so. and i have problem trying to decide if Xia does or not. he is in the borderline.

perhaps clinical and style are the wrong words to describe them. but i hope someone understands what i mean and help me explain my thoughts.

I might be biased, but I think the players in the 60's and 70's were more passionate about the game. I heard my coach talking about his committment to reach the 'perfection'. After 'normal' practice, he would spend hours to improve his strokes, like his drop shot and its variations from different situations and angles. To do this he made adaptations to the footwork to achieve the purpose. On top of this, he also mentioned that he had a net hung in his dining room so that he could practice and improve his serve when at home.

I might also be that currently on average the level of players is closer that is was, say 10/20 years ago. Players from different countries have same or almost same probability to win the trophy which is very positive. Looking from this angle, I would agree that on average the actual top 20 players level is higher than before.

Individually speaking, I still see players of the olden days better. Tang Xian Fu still tops, with Hou Jia Chang and Zhao JianHua very very close. For ladies, the ones I've seen Han AiPing, Zhang AiLing, Yeh Zhaoying and consider them technically the best. None of the the actual top ladies players could produce the shots like they did at their prime.

Kwun, don't know how to explain what you are trying to say. But I remember 1 sentence my coach said long time ago - to find THE top player, should look in the countryside. How many potential badminton players (in the national team) grew up climbing trees?

Don't want to assume that I know what he meant, but read interviews on 2 famous personalities in football: Arsene Wenger (manager of English team Arsenal and with many years of experience developing young players in France) and Cruyff the Dutch superstar of the 70's. Wenger, curiously mentioned same thing as my coach did 20 years ago, as the possibility why there is no another Maradona or Pele. Cruyff said that possibly the next superstar is playing soccer on a dirty and road full of holes against older players.

Do you mean orthodox and unorthodox?

I think you are using style in the wrong context. The style of game has changed, as the players and their equipment have changed. The pace of the game has defintely increased, with more emphasis in attack rather than defense. This results in fewer rallies. Where as players in the olden days, they prefered to move one another around the court and play mind games to force an error, modern players are happy to smash their way to victory.

Modern players seldom use unorthodox techniqes, because they have been taught properly since a child and haved honed and refined to perfection. This makes it appear mechanical in some aspects, but I think efficiency is the word I would use.

Every person has a style to their play. Xia definetly does. His looks may be ordinary but who else wears a shirt with the collar turned up!

I think I have noticed a trend to pick tall slim players nowadays as opposed to before. Also, looks like there is more meat on the older players...LS King, H Jian, M Frost. There used to be some relatively fat players who played doubles too. Some Malaysians and Koreans I saw playing, were quite porky! I think Zhang Jun is about the porkiest out there on the circuit now.

Do not forget that most countries in the world are coached by Asian (Chinese) coaches, therefore they play with much the same style.

Some said to me that they hated watching an all Chinese final. I was offended initially, but after witnessing such a final. I have to conclude that it is a bit more boring to watch.

Todays games are a lot more physical but less mental.

Just my opinion.

This whole process of the changes in badminton in the last half a century is nearly evolutionary in its methodology. However, a certain stagnation could possibly occur, as unlike in nature, there is not outside influence or force to affect the world of badminton. In this way, international level badminton has adopted the style which was the most effective in the last two decades; the hard training and power style developed by the Chinese has become predominant. Is it possible that because of this, badminton has not been allowed to grow and advance as a sport to its full potential? Are other avenues not being fully explored, with a stronger focus on mental training and skills? Could it be possible that a champion might arise as a result of his or her training in a completely different method that is totally antithetical to that most utilized today, allowing a complete, yet disadvantageous overturn in the badminton world?

Didn't gopichand win AE in 2001 with his unique style?

Although majority of Msian players are modelled after China,

those from Nusa are original made in Msia and showing good results.

Denmark and Ina always create their own niche and ina is getting more influential

than ever. More fusion likely or more diversity?

And there is the unique Kim Dong Moon.

unorthodox vs. orthodox. yes. that's inline with my thoughts as well. modern players are so much well trained, their shots are closer to perfection, or what many would considered to be "standard" strokes and movements.

but even so, orthodox/unorthodox doesn't describe my thoughts exactly. let's give a few examples of MS games to illustrate my thoughts:

TC semi 2002 - Xia vs. Wong

perhaps plain/dull vs. creativity is another dimension. i sometimes find some modern players to be rather dull, esp for the attacking game. i just watched the TC match between Xia and Wong. throughout the match, it was net/net/net/net, lift, smash, net/net/net. add in a push once in a while. execution was done at lightning speed and perfect from both sides, any margin of errors are severely punished.

i personally did not find that game exciting to watch other than the tension involved.

AE final 1999 - Taufik vs. Gade

another contrasting example, i think this was 2000 or 1999 AE final between Taufik and Gade, that was a much better game, there are fast smashes and tight netdrops, but both sides showed much more creativity in their play, along with their precision, speed and power.

Japan Open final 2003 - Xia vs. Lin

not sure how many people have seen this match. it should be out in badmintoncity.com soon i hope. here is a contrast to the TC semi game. i actually find this match to be very exciting to watch. it was an match full of offensive shots. but this time i don't find it dull. in fact i find this match to be one of the better ones in my book. Xia and Lin showed their completeness in their game. you see everything there is to a badminton match, speed, power, smash, drop, clear, net, push, drives. all precisely executed and intertwined into each rally and never shows any signs of plain or dullness throughout. adding onto that the style of Xia made this a great match to watch IMHO.

so yet again, more thoughts but still no concrete description.

Good eg. of unorthodox strokes- Xie Xin Fang.

Good eg. of 80's player with uneconomical style,

Xiong Guo Bao with his double actions and deceptive play

in 1986 T Cup. Later changed to a more efficient style (maybe with better racquets)

that we know today.

Will Xie Xin Fang and Mia Audina go the way of Xiong ?

interesting to see the style of players and their coaching influence.

Lee HI - Li Mao
WongCH - (initially) Han Jian
and then the whole squad of Chinese MS players.

and i think of another description for them, rigidity in style but efficient and effective.

and then other pointed out those who do not fall into this category, Taufik, Gopi, Gade, etc, all have non-chinese coaches.

interesting that Bbn brought up Xie. i have been trying to study her style. i'd say her style is unorthodox but also very efficient. mainly finger and wrist action with minimal footwork. yet shots are as effective. similarly for Maria. older generation players have their unorthodox style too, Zhao with his behind the head drop, YY with his no body rotation jumpsmash.

perhaps the elite during the older generation has more varying style. while the elite in the current generation has less?

I think the biggest trend setter in today's badminton is Tang Xian Hu.

80's starss played to Hou Jia Jiang's style.

Tang Xian Hu created a fast pace style first in Ina in the form of

Indonesian players in 90's and recently people like Xia, Bao, Chen Hong

etc. Li mao created people like Sun Jun, Dong Jiong etc but I have seen Li Mao play,

he is sth like Xiong Guo Bao but his strength is in match strategy, not style.

I think today's game was set up by Tang to beat older players like Poul Erik Hoyer in

his hey-days.Just a guess.

I guess again that Li Yong Bo and Tang's strategy is to produce fast, efficeing, fit

and consisitent players who can survive early rounds of tournaments tournament

after tournament to maintain their seedings. If it happens that their opponents in

the final stages are not outstanding, then they win titles.

I think that's why some players do well in GP tours but flop in matches in

Thomas Cup or Sudirman, because in these team matches, being brilliant could

mean more than consistency in one-off matches.

YY and Zhao never had to play so many tours and they were never highly ranked as

they chose their tournaments, unlike Frost, who must be the most consistent.

i think 80's players could afford to be brilliant but there is a downside, players like

Zhao, Dong Jiong, Poul Erik play brilliantly one day and flop next as their playing

style is high risk and prone to a lot of errors.

i guess badminto is as commerlised today as pop music, is Mariah Carey better than

say Diana Ross ?

This summer john macenroe blow away mark philipoussis in singles! (World Team Tennis)


"Similarly in tennis people fail to appreciate the brilliance of Sampras and talk about the skill of McEnroe etc, there just isn't the time nowadays to play the more graceful game and players now are packed with muscle , meaning their movement, although faster, isn't as graceful."

I am old enough to have seen players from the late 1950s period of Tan Joe Hock, Ferry Sonneville, Teh Kew San to Rudy Hartono, Earland Kops, Han Jian, Zhao, Yang Yang, Frost, Misbun, through all the current crop of players. It is not fair to compare them with today's players. Given the very limited funds, much poorer equipment and the lack of real peer competition, the past masters never had the opportunity to reach the very high levels they were capable of. If you take off the "if they had today's facilities" I really don't think the past masters would be able to match today's masters. That would include great ones like Hartono or even the great Master Tang.
The new scoring system may make the game even faster This may require new strategies. As Eddy Choong once said, the game of badminton is evolving and alive, never stagnant.

Given the very limited funds, much poorer equipment and the lack of real peer competition, the past masters never had the opportunity to reach the very high levels they were capable of. If you take off the "if they had today's facilities" I really don't think the past masters would be able to match today's masters. That would include great ones like Hartono or even the great Master Tang.

This is very true, the past master may lost badly to current player but people then to forget their biggest contribution to badminton is

new playing style, past player has to do a lot of thinking themself as there are not that many good coaches around & different country got different approach to the game
perfecting every stroke, by trail and error past player find the best way to make a shot and past it on to the next generation.
finding the best training progamme, training progamme is still being fine tune by using the scientific approach.
making badminton more famous, if not for them, we will not be playing badminton now & maybe just in the backyard :p
cheers...

People in general get better at everything with time. In the case of badminton new rackets, shots, deception, nutrition, tactics, shoes, court surfaces will improve todays players. It is not human nature to get worse at anything. Computers from the 80s are no where near the computers of today. Same with badminton rackets, same with training facilities, training regimines. If you take all the players old and new and put them through the same training, same food, same equipment...... how can anyone possibly hope to compare that?

This may be telling. Today's top players like Lin Dan probably hits the shuttle more in one month of training than Earland Kops or Tan Joe Hock did in 6 or more months. You just look at their arms.

Lin Dan could probably hit the shuttle more in one month of training than Earland Kops, but don't think he hits more than the old timers like Tang Xinfu, Hou Jiachang and co. As for the 'old timers', they did not have much TV or internet to distract them. ;) And often for their singles games/drills, they played against 2 opponents...

Lin Dan could probably hit the shuttle more in one month of training than Earland Kops, but don't think he hits more than the old timers like Tang Xinfu, Hou Jiachang and co. As for the 'old timers', they did not have much TV or internet to distract them. ;) And often for their singles games/drills, they played against 2 opponents...

But they also dun have yonex and other to sponsor them. Shuttle cock, restring & court rental = $$$$$

But they also dun have yonex and other to sponsor them. Shuttle cock, restring & court rental = $$$$$

For the Chinese players, they have the country sponsoring them. Everything is provided free, aren't you aware of that? I believe in many powerhouses, their players are treated more or less the same way. ;)

For the Chinese players, they have the country sponsoring them. Everything is provided free, aren't you aware of that? I believe in many powerhouses, their players are treated more or less the same way. ;)

But back in Tang's era they even have problem financially to compete outside their country. Most of the time when they play outside, is when some one from other country or chinese living abroad sponsor them. :D

But back in Tang's era they even have problem financially to compete outside their country. Most of the time when they play outside, is when some one from other country or chinese living abroad sponsor them. :D

I don't know where you got this information, as far as badminton in China, it was always country supported. They seldom play outside China is not due to financial problems but rather political. :rolleyes:

I find it unlikely that Lin Dan would be able to keep up with the godly Zhao Jian Hua (if the latter was on form) or Yang Yang; aside from that, keeping everything constant, today's players would probably emerge the victors.

YY and Zhao, while being my heroes would not be in the top 50 today with their 1980s style and fitness

I find it unlikely that Lin Dan would be able to keep up with the godly Zhao Jian Hua (if the latter was on form) or Yang Yang; aside from that, keeping everything constant, today's players would probably emerge the victors.
no 2 player is alike.
ZJH is more deceptive and more stroke variety.
LD is faster and has more power. In his current state, his stroke and deception ain't bad either.

I'd say LD would able to take ZJH just because LD can able to launch attack sooner. Deceptive and stroke is not as effective when you're always 1/2 to 1 step behind your opponent. Just look at TH vs LD in 09 FO, first set, LD ran circles around TH, the stroke and deception magician. On the 2nd second, TH resorted to just smashing (ie power) which give him a few more points than b4.

The thing about Lin Dan is that he is always 1/2 step to 1 step ahead of his opponent IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

Superior athletism doesnt work if you're always going the wrong way. That's why Lin Dan is a class above in the modern game... and that not all modern players match up againts Past Legends

The thing about Lin Dan is that he is always 1/2 step to 1 step ahead of his opponent IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

Superior athletism doesnt work if you're always going the wrong way. That's why Lin Dan is a class above in the modern game... and that not all modern players match up againts Past Legends

i have been pounding the table for years and years in BF on the message that speed beat stroke skills. I've met many resistance. I talk about LD alot because i use him as an example frequently - how to develop the right skills the way it should be for a MS player. The backhand smash, backhand cross court drops, are mostly for show, not bread and butter core skills.

I've noticed that today's players are bigger and stronger and they have the advantage of the latest badminton technology. Today's game centers a lot around power and so the game has evolved at the fundamental level. Notice how nearly all international level MS or MD players will do jump-smashes today while that statement can only be said for perhaps the elite bunch of yesteryears.

As a contrast, I made a statement in the "badminton videos" thread that the players of the 80's and 90's seemed more graceful and fluid-like, because their games did not center completely on power. Also, those players did not have Ultimum-Ti, or Muscle Power technology, etc. in their rackets.

If all variables were kept the same (ie. same rackets, shoes), then I would think the best players of yesterday can beat the best of today. Li Yong Bo/Tian Bing Yi in their prime would definitely slaughter the current crop of Chinese MD players. similarly, I believe Zhao Jian Hua/Yang Yang could match Chen Hong/Xia Xuan Ze. Regarding Kim/Ha, I don't think they can beat their predecessors, Park Joo Boon/Kim Moon Soo.

What do others think?

In what ways are LiYongBo/ Tian Bing Yi better that CY/FHF and may I know why you are comparing Zhao Jian Hua/ Yang Yang with Cheng Hong/ Xia Xuan Ze instead of LD and BCL?

In what ways are LiYongBo/ Tian Bing Yi better that CY/FHF and may I know why you are comparing Zhao Jian Hua/ Yang Yang with Cheng Hong/ Xia Xuan Ze instead of LD and BCL?

i doubt hugo is around to answer your post:p

anyway, it is silly and nonsense to say yesterday best can out play today's best. Of course i respect the old heros, they pave the foundation of skills for the today's players to build on but today's players don't stop here, they keep on piling on new skills and experience.

hugo is saying if same old (non-radial) tires, gasoline are used, old gasoline race cars can out perform today's gasoline race cars. Silly silly.

There's no way the players of generations past can match up with the players of today... Training method, technology etc are much better today... Look at other sports like baseball, basketball, hockey... The players are that much bigger and faster today... Just like players 20 yrs from now can own players this generation...

Is there one sprinter record that was set in the 80s/90s is still holding up today??

So what makes you guy believe the past great could actually match up with today's top pro???

Is there one sprinter record that was set in the 80s/90s is still holding up today??

So what makes you guy believe the past great could actually match up with today's top pro???short and sweet;)

Is there one sprinter record that was set in the 80s/90s is still holding up today??

So what makes you guy believe the past great could actually match up with today's top pro???

sprinting is not synonymous with badminton. Case in point, Roddick has the fastest serve in Tennis History, But can he rack up his championship trophies against Federer? Does Federer have the best strength in any shot? Does Tiger hits the ball the hardest? Court games must be looked at differently as not all shots end up with a winning smash.

Jason.

sprinting is not synonymous with badminton. Case in point, Roddick has the fastest serve in Tennis History, But can he rack up his championship trophies against Federer? Does Federer have the best strength in any shot? Does Tiger hits the ball the hardest? Court games must be looked at differently as not all shots end up with a winning smash.

Jason.obviously u don't get the underlining point of wongegg's comparison. Wongegg DID NOT compare sprinting to badminton. He asked u to compare speed of old and new sprinters within the realm of the same sport, sprinting. :rolleyes: If u can't find 1 in sprinting, nor in swimming, nor in drag racing, nor in etc. Then by sound reasoning, without going into all aspect of badminton skills, the same can be said to badminton as well.

Speed is the decider in sprinting, why r u bringing forward speed of serve in tennis or speed of golf swing into the sprinting comparison? We all know fastest smashes don't point to the best player.

In order to prove wongegg's example as invalid, u have to find:
1. find a sprinter of the past that can out do today's sprinter.
or
2. find another sport when past athletes can out do today best.

don't cherry pick 1 skill and cross jump into another sport for comparison.


It seem this analogy is too hard for u to understand, not short and sweet.

obviously u don't get the underlining point of wongegg's comparison. Wongegg DID NOT compare sprinting to badminton. He asked u to compare speed of old and new sprinters within the realm of the same sport, sprinting. :rolleyes: If u can't find 1 in sprinting, nor in swimming, nor in drag racing, nor in etc. Then by sound reasoning, without going into all aspect of badminton skills, the same can be said to badminton as well.

Speed is the decider in sprinting, why r u bringing forward speed of serve in tennis or speed of golf swing into the sprinting comparison? We all know fastest smashes don't point to the best player.

In order to prove wongegg's example as invalid, u have to find:
1. find a sprinter of the past that can out do today's sprinter.
or
2. find another sport when past athletes can out do today best.

don't cherry pick 1 skill and cross jump into another sport for comparison.


It seem this analogy is too hard for u to understand, not short and sweet.

Cooler, I know you are very smart. Thanks for pointing that out. And I know you always want to point others out that are stupid. But he was stating that the present players can outdo the past players, which he brought in the comparison of speed between past and present competitors in the same field, which I disagree, especially in court games.
I was not comparing roddick with the sprinter. I was comparing roddick with previous tennis players. I was not comparing Tiger with sprinters. I was comparing Tiger with previous Golf players. I was just trying to say that even with great strides made in speed and power, we still have the best players not needing to have the best speed and the highest power to be a champion.
Seems you are very condescending when others make opinions that are not to your high standards. And I did not cherry pick my statements to make me look good. So I shall stop here, and you can carry on with your sarcasm with others.

Cooler, I know you are very smart. Thanks for pointing that out. And I know you always want to point others out that are stupid. But he was stating that the present players can outdo the past players, which he brought in the comparison of speed between past and present competitors in the same field, which I disagree, especially in court games.
I was not comparing roddick with the sprinter. I was comparing roddick with previous tennis players. I was not comparing Tiger with sprinters. I was comparing Tiger with previous Golf players. I was just trying to say that even with great strides made in speed and power, we still have the best players not needing to have the best speed and the highest power to be a champion.
Seems you are very condescending when others make opinions that are not to your high standards. And I did not cherry pick my statements to make me look good. So I shall stop here, and you can carry on with your sarcasm with others.

u r wasting a lot of energy beating around the bush and repeating yourself.
Why don't u save some energy with just giving me 1 reply for:

In order to prove wongegg's example as invalid, u have to find:
1. find a sprinter of the past that can out do today's sprinter.
or
2. find another sport when past athletes can out do today best.

2. find another sport when past athletes can out do today best.
On average, or just 1 v 1? Because I'm pretty sure Pelé has yet to be topped.

Cooler, I know you are very smart. Thanks for pointing that out. And I know you always want to point others out that are stupid. But he was stating that the present players can outdo the past players, which he brought in the comparison of speed between past and present competitors in the same field, which I disagree, especially in court games.
I was not comparing roddick with the sprinter. I was comparing roddick with previous tennis players. I was not comparing Tiger with sprinters. I was comparing Tiger with previous Golf players. I was just trying to say that even with great strides made in speed and power, we still have the best players not needing to have the best speed and the highest power to be a champion.
Seems you are very condescending when others make opinions that are not to your high standards. And I did not cherry pick my statements to make me look good. So I shall stop here, and you can carry on with your sarcasm with others.

But you also have to note that the guy with the fastest serve doesn't mean he's the best player player though, look at golf, they have the longest drive contest and those guys can smoke even Tiger Woods in distance but they will never make the PGA tour because they suck in the other aspect of the game. I think you have to look at the overall package of the player, and today's players are faster, more powerful and fit than players of previous years due to technological advances and their training methods etc... Look at Bojrn Borg in tennis when he tried to come back, he was a top tennis player, but when he tried to come back he got beat by even journeyman players... I know you're trying to say there are things like court sense and intelligence, but if you don't have the speed and power behind your play, it just won't work... Look at F1, Lewis Hamilton, Kimi Raikonen and Alonso are supposed to be the best drivers out there, but they didn't win this year because their car sucked... (Kinda like you have the technique and smarts but you are just not fast and powerful enough)

On average, or just 1 v 1? Because I'm pretty sure Pelé has yet to be topped.good question.
I say it is more so valid for 1 vs 1 or 1 vs all others(ex. bolt vs other sprinters).
In a team sport, it is harder to assess individual's true ability relative to other players of other teams. By just adding 1 extra player, like in doubles, the comparision is complex enough already. Look at the thread about who's the best MD pair, hard to say, that's why i did not participate discussion in the thread, it can't be or it's hard to be conclusive about it. For soccer team with even more players, comparison is even harder. However, i have to say pele is the best in his own time period framework. Even for Rudy Hartono for winning record # of AE titles, is he's the best, i say no. He accomplished that because there were very little competition at his time period. Viver had told us that chinese players were even better but do not play due to politics.
To dominate a sport today is way way harder than the olden days.

But you also have to note that the guy with the fastest serve doesn't mean he's the best player player though, look at golf, they have the longest drive contest and those guys can smoke even Tiger Woods in distance but they will never make the PGA tour because they suck in the other aspect of the game. I think you have to look at the overall package of the player, and today's players are faster, more powerful and fit than players of previous years due to technological advances and their training methods etc... Look at Bojrn Borg in tennis when he tried to come back, he was a top tennis player, but when he tried to come back he got beat by even journeyman players... I know you're trying to say there are things like court sense and intelligence, but if you don't have the speed and power behind your play, it just won't work... Look at F1, Lewis Hamilton, Kimi Raikonen and Alonso are supposed to be the best drivers out there, but they didn't win this year because their car sucked... (Kinda like you have the technique and smarts but you are just not fast and powerful enough)
thx for the additonal info.
I had pounded the table on this topic many times before.
I'm willing to exclude power in the comparion.
Without speed, the old greats make great pro coaches, not pro players.

Oh some would say, not fair comparison, they are older now but if u compare them (previous generation pros with today's pros, at similar age and condition, the answer is still obvious. My advice to them, just good watch some old films on how fast and powerful those previous pros play.

u r wasting a lot of energy beating around the bush and repeating yourself.
Why don't u save some energy with just giving me 1 reply for:

In order to prove wongegg's example as invalid, u have to find:
1. find a sprinter of the past that can out do today's sprinter.
or
2. find another sport when past athletes can out do today best.


Pete Sampras did beat Roger Federer in an exhibition match recently.

Pete Sampras did beat Roger Federer in an exhibition match recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkxDcA4qnsA
sampras has to take a rest break even when he didn't has to hit the ball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-1qYRqf4DA highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esKqYhgnQcY&NR=1&feature=fvwp did u got it backward?

enuff said about sampras vs federer

Pete Sampras did beat Roger Federer in an exhibition match recently.

It was an exhibition match, with exhibition being the keyword... I don't think the end result will be a 3 set tie-break thriller if this was in a grandslam match... A better example could be when Michael Jordan came back with the Washington Wizards in the NBA, while Michael was and is still considered the best basketball player ever, he is not the best when he came back with the wizards, while his stats are respectable, it is because he was on a very poor team with him as the only good player(being part owner sure helps get you the ball):p

..when he played with Da Bulls, Air Jordan was playing in a pretty much watered down league...Da Bulls was the only dominant team..I mean, which player or which team was Air Jordan's/Da Bulls' main rival??..

Shaq / Orlando Magic??

......................................

sprinting is not synonymous with badminton. Case in point, Roddick has the fastest serve in Tennis History, But can he rack up his championship trophies against Federer? Does Federer have the best strength in any shot? Does Tiger hits the ball the hardest? Court games must be looked at differently as not all shots end up with a winning smash.

Jason.

Serving the fastest in tennis surely won't bring you a win, but a faster court coverage will. We are not saying today's player has only stronger smashes in badminton, but they also has a fitter body so they can reach the shuttle quicker for their advantage.

Additionally, some people believe that the players from past has better skills and technique and that I also disagree. I remember someone was pointing out that the double players from the past era can defend better and able to keep the rally for longer. However, lifting the shuttle up high is actually a secondary option and the best way to counter smashes is to drive them back so you can regain the initiative. Look at MK/HS's game, fast and flat and they won't even let their opponent to smash at them to begin with.

allow me to add, on the technique side of things as well.

In general, like wongegg said, past pros don't own all the techniques.

let me give an example, 1974 AE, hartono versus Gunalan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAXvT3jtFTY
even the commentator had noted that Gunalan is employing smashing and rush to the net tactic. Even in game 3, Hartono was still serving high serves. Gunalan won lotta points smashing at hartono's serves, as clean winners and/or leading up to a winning rally. Even Gunalan (4:24) serves low to make hartono lift and smash for a winner. Surely, even a junior MS of today knows that u don't do high serves especially when opponent is using smash and grab tactic. Yes, hartono won but i think with his other skills (and many of Gunalan unforced errors). Point is, such simple change of tactic wasn't even recognized by a veteran pro.

I loath to give my two cents worth on a working day but this thread I couldnt resist.

Someone post that how Li Yong Bo/Tian B Y couldnt be better that FHF/CY. I think it was Cooler but I could be wrong. To things in perspective.

This is what I observed. In 1992 Olympics, The top four of the world made it to the top four of the Olympics.

In the quarter finals, Tian By/ Li Y B beat the hard smashing and creative Cheah Soon Kit and Soo Beng Kiang. Their younger opponents represented the new way things were done, fast drop shots, lightning fast and steep smashes. Yet they beat them.

Rexy and Ricky were also the way to the future and if you see their match with Cheah and Soo in TC 1992 you will see the future. But in 1992, Rexy and Ricky were still struggling against Sideks.

Cheah later partnered Yap Kim Hock to rival Rexy and Ricky.

yet Park and Han beat Cheah and Yap in 1996!!

Cheah and yap in turn beat Lee and Yoo 1998.

Where does all these leading to? Well through out 1998, when Kim and Ha and Lee and Yoo were on the ascendant the old Cheah and Yap could still hold their on as well as rexy and Ricky.

Now imagine this, Lee Wan Wah and Choong T F were the second pair for malaysia and they could nt beat CHeah and yap until the CW final in 1998.

And This Lee Wan Wah and Choong could beat FHF/CY consistently most notably in 2004 AE Semi final and the WC in 2006. So Can you say that Tian B Y / Li yong Bo cant beat FHF/CY?

I loath to give my two cents worth on a working day but this thread I couldnt resist.

Someone post that how Li Yong Bo/Tian B Y couldnt be better that FHF/CY. I think it was Cooler but I could be wrong. To things in perspective.

This is what I observed. In 1992 Olympics, The top four of the world made it to the top four of the Olympics.

In the quarter finals, Tian By/ Li Y B beat the hard smashing and creative Cheah Soon Kit and Soo Beng Kiang. Their younger opponents represented the new way things were done, fast drop shots, lightning fast and steep smashes. Yet they beat them.

Rexy and Ricky were also the way to the future and if you see their match with Cheah and Soo in TC 1992 you will see the future. But in 1992, Rexy and Ricky were still struggling against Sideks.

Cheah later partnered Yap Kim Hock to rival Rexy and Ricky.

yet Park and Han beat Cheah and Yap in 1996!!

Cheah and yap in turn beat Lee and Yoo 1998.

Where does all these leading to? Well through out 1998, when Kim and Ha and Lee and Yoo were on the ascendant the old Cheah and Yap could still hold their on as well as rexy and Ricky.

Now imagine this, Lee Wan Wah and Choong T F were the second pair for malaysia and they could nt beat CHeah and yap until the CW final in 1998.

And This Lee Wan Wah and Choong could beat FHF/CY consistently most notably in 2004 AE Semi final and the WC in 2006. So Can you say that Tian B Y / Li yong Bo cant beat FHF/CY?

Thank You Sonnymak. Yes, I remember those times.

I also remember a few years back when Misbun was already in his 40's but he still entered a few state open tournaments and actually managed to beat some current national players.

i have been pounding the table for years and years in BF on the message that speed beat stroke skills. I've met many resistance. I talk about LD alot because i use him as an example frequently - how to develop the right skills the way it should be for a MS player. The backhand smash, backhand cross court drops, are mostly for show, not bread and butter core skills.

Let's not underestimate Lin Dan and only praise him for his speed and power.

He is defo carrying more than INTEL INSIDE to stay so well ahead of his competition

And This Lee Wan Wah and Choong could beat FHF/CY consistently most notably in 2004 AE Semi final and the WC in 2006. So Can you say that Tian B Y / Li yong Bo cant beat FHF/CY?

TH used to beat LCW consistently before 2005, but is it the case today??? Nope.

Also if you look at the H2H in MD
LYD/JJS > MK/HS
MK/HS > CY/FHF

And so can we say LYD/JJS is definitely better than CY/FHF? I don't think so. Even they all from the same era.

I am sure if I have all data with me I could trace backward to show LD is better than ZJH using your logic. LOL

I loath to give my two cents worth on a working day but this thread I couldnt resist.

Someone post that how Li Yong Bo/Tian B Y couldnt be better that FHF/CY. I think it was Cooler but I could be wrong. To things in perspective.

This is what I observed. In 1992 Olympics, The top four of the world made it to the top four of the Olympics.

In the quarter finals, Tian By/ Li Y B beat the hard smashing and creative Cheah Soon Kit and Soo Beng Kiang. Their younger opponents represented the new way things were done, fast drop shots, lightning fast and steep smashes. Yet they beat them.

Rexy and Ricky were also the way to the future and if you see their match with Cheah and Soo in TC 1992 you will see the future. But in 1992, Rexy and Ricky were still struggling against Sideks.

Cheah later partnered Yap Kim Hock to rival Rexy and Ricky.

yet Park and Han beat Cheah and Yap in 1996!!

Cheah and yap in turn beat Lee and Yoo 1998.

Where does all these leading to? Well through out 1998, when Kim and Ha and Lee and Yoo were on the ascendant the old Cheah and Yap could still hold their on as well as rexy and Ricky.

Now imagine this, Lee Wan Wah and Choong T F were the second pair for malaysia and they could nt beat CHeah and yap until the CW final in 1998.

And This Lee Wan Wah and Choong could beat FHF/CY consistently most notably in 2004 AE Semi final and the WC in 2006. So Can you say that Tian B Y / Li yong Bo cant beat FHF/CY?

first, off topic.
i know of a sonny mak here that i play with, he's MAS too :D

second,
no, it wasn't me who said that. I try to stay out of head to head comparison on doubles if u care to read my prior postings.

third, since u mentioned me, let me give it a try.
your comparision was FLAWED
u r comparing red apples with green apples.
a fairer way is to compare them at their similar maturity and development, like peak to peak phase. If we have a time machine, and turn back time for lyb/tby to their peak form, and then plop them down in a court right now with fu/cai at their peak form, who will win? i say fu/cai will win.

fourth,
same goes wif your other examples of comparing red apples with crab apples or green apples.

Let's not underestimate Lin Dan and only praise him for his speed and power.

He is defo carrying more than INTEL INSIDE to stay so well ahead of his competition
thx for your note. Yes, very little mention of that dept for LD.
don't know if u saw my skill pyramid, yes, there are 2 others qualities (IMO) that ride above speed and power but i didn't talk about it, because i don't need to yet:p Let say, i'm still winning by playing wif my left (non-dominating hand, just like LD:p hehehe

third, since u mentioned me, let me give it a try.
your comparision was FLAWED
u r comparing red apples with green apples.
a fairer way is to compare them at their similar maturity and development, like peak to peak phase. If we have a time machine, and turn back time for lyb/tby to their peak form, and then plop them down in a court right now with fu/cai at their peak form, who will win? i say fu/cai will win.


not done posting yet.

if fu/cai did loses to lyb/tby, he should be a considered a failure and should be totally ashamed because he can't produce a MD pair that he taught everything he knew about doubles, plus extra knowledge from many other coaches (tangfu, etc), and better nutrients and conditioning. This example is just to address lyb/tby vs fu/cai comparsion, not fu/cai vs kido/setiawan or other current MD pairs

for those nay sayers, u prolly have an excuse for my prediction.
If fu/cai did win over lyb/tby, you nayers will say, the match was fixed LOL

I don't think Sonnymak is using the dubious A>B, B>C then A>C "logic". His point is, the fact that CTF/LWW (and also Candra/Tony) still can match young pairs in 2007, when they were already around 30, shows that there is no big difference in physical ability between current players and players 10 years ago.

TH cannot beat LCW now because TH is much slower now than himself in 2004. Are you saying TH in 2004 will not be able to match LCW today?:confused:

Note: even today's PG, at age 33, considerably slower than 10 years ago, can still beat LCW once in a while and push LD to the limit.

TH used to beat LCW consistently before 2005, but is it the case today??? Nope.

Also if you look at the H2H in MD
LYD/JJS > MK/HS
MK/HS > CY/FHF

And so can we say LYD/JJS is definitely better than CY/FHF? I don't think so. Even they all from the same era.

I am sure if I have all data with me I could trace backward to show LD is better than ZJH using your logic. LOL

If you just pull LYB/TBY from 1990 and throw them on court, I agree that CY/FHF will beat them easily. However, things may change a lot if we give LBY/TBY several months to get used to the current styles and pace. ;)

LYB said he could bench press 130kg while CY(Chen Yu, not Cai Yun)'s 100kg is already among the best in today's team China. Is past player physically inferior to present ones?;)

first, off topic.
i know of a sonny mak here that i play with, he's MAS too :D

second,
no, it wasn't me who said that. I try to stay out of head to head comparison on doubles if u care to read my prior postings.

third, since u mentioned me, let me give it a try.
your comparision was FLAWED
u r comparing red apples with green apples.
a fairer way is to compare them at their similar maturity and development, like peak to peak phase. If we have a time machine, and turn back time for lyb/tby to their peak form, and then plop them down in a court right now with fu/cai at their peak form, who will win? i say fu/cai will win.

fourth,
same goes wif your other examples of comparing red apples with crab apples or green apples.

Note: even today's PG, at age 33, considerably slower than 10 years ago, can still beat LCW once in a while and push LD to the limit.
no disrespect to PG but lets get real.
TH beat PG, then LD fling around TH, and i'm comparing all of them within the same week time framework, not what if's this and that years ago or decades ago.
PG to push LD to the limit:confused:LOL, maybe in beer drinking or ice water swimming.

Are u trying to out do Pjswift in the entertainment dept.?:p

I really don't think the players of the 80's and early 90's can match the players current time.

Even if we give the equipment technology to those of the past, I still don't think the players of the past can beat players of current. Not only are the players of current time stronger, they're also faster and more dynamic.

If you just pull LYB/TBY from 1990 and throw them on court, I agree that CY/FHF will beat them easily. However, things may change a lot if we give LBY/TBY several months to get used to the current styles and pace. ;)

LYB said he could bench press 130kg while CY(Chen Yu, not Cai Yun)'s 100kg is already among the best in today's team China. Is past player physically inferior to present ones?;)

if lyb from the 1990's is transported into today time period, and let them get used to current life styles and conditioning, i say he'll be worst off. Why? Today life style will make him more 'fat' because of he'll be chauffeured around and eat bon bon, chasing better looking gals of today. Wahahalol

u and other nay sayers may say i am joking around? i have the analogue proof, unlike some other people with hollow statement (about me):p

I pray that lyb doesn't read this thread, and hope LD don't squeal on me:D

Now see who is using the A>B, B>C then A>C argument. LOL.

In 2004 OG (within one week, yeah! :D), Susilo beat LD 2:0, Boonsak beat Susilo easily (15:10, 15:1), TH toyed Boonsak (15:9, 15:2). So according to your logic, LD wouldn't even be able to push TH to the limit... :D

no disrespect to PG but lets get real.
TH beat PG, then LD fling around TH, and i'm comparing all of them within the same week time framework, not what if's this and that years ago or decades ago.
PG to push LD to the limit:confused:LOL, maybe in beer drinking or ice water swimming.

Are u trying to out do Pjswift in the entertainment dept.?:p

Note: even today's PG, at age 33, considerably slower than 10 years ago, can still beat LCW once in a while and push LD to the limit.

Now see who is using the A>B, B>C then A>C argument. LOL.

In 2004 OG (within one week, yeah! :D), Susilo beat LD 2:0, Boonsak beat Susilo easily (15:10, 15:1), TH toyed Boonsak (15:9, 15:2). So according to your logic, LD wouldn't even be able to push TH to the limit... :D

i talk red apple vs red apple.
U talk about PG of today and then use 2004 events to back up your comparision. Can u stay still and talk straight?

I didn't say LD dominated in 04-05 era did i?
I would say a peak LD can beat a peak TH, hands down.

A beat B, B beat C so A should be able to beat C, is a false argument, no matter how close "A beat B" and "B beat C" are.

My 2004 OG example is not to "back up" my argument, it's to expose your "logic". :D

Btw, if I remember correctly, you are among those people who always said TH's OG title is "luck" because LD lost early. Or you are not one of those people?:confused:

i talk red apple vs red apple.
U talk about PG of today and then use 2004 events to back up your comparision. Can u stay still and talk straight?

I didn't say LD dominated in 04-05 era did i?
I would say a peak LD can beat a peak TH, hands down.

A beat B, B beat C so A should be able to beat C, is a false argument, no matter how close "A beat B" and "B beat C" are.

My 2004 OG example is not to "back up" my argument, it's to expose your "logic". :D

Btw, if I remember correctly, you are among those people who always said TH's OG title is "luck" because LD lost early. Or you are not one of those people?:confused:
yes, i did say that, not hiding from it.
Luck means it help TH, not 100% luck, nothing is 100%. TH still has to run around the court and hit the shuttle around to win.
in 04 OG, LD, RS, boonsak are all new to big tournament, did poorly mainly because of inexperience and unsolified mental focus. I said luck meaning TH did not encounter any chinese. If u look at TH record recently, his record against the chineses are terrible. Luck also means stupid OG rules allowing only 3 top players from each country. China can field 4 to 5 chineses in 04 OG if that stupid rule isnt there.

That is why TH do lousy in Opens like FO, AE, etc (except INA open of course) because there's no restriction on entry except withdrawal. Show me a TH title from an Open where LD was there..

Actually there are two. 2004 INA TH 2:1 LD in SF, 2005 Singapore TH 2:0 LD in SF. :D

Show me a TH title from an Open where LD was there..

Btw, I don't see why the rule is stupid. Can Brasil blame the "stupid quota" when their team lost to France in 06 WC? Can they say, we have many many good players, but what the heck we can only field one team!:D

yes, i did say that, not hiding from it.
Luck means it help TH, not 100% luck, nothing is 100%. TH still has to run around the court and hit the shuttle around to win.
in 04 OG, LD, RS, boonsak are all new to big tournament, did poorly mainly because of inexperience and unsolified mental focus. I said luck meaning TH did not encounter any chinese. If u look at TH record recently, his record against the chineses are terrible. Luck also means stupid OG rules allowing only 3 top players from each country. China can field 4 to 5 chineses in 04 OG if that stupid rule isnt there.

That is why TH do lousy in Opens like FO, AE, etc (except INA open of course) because there's no restriction on entry except withdrawal. Show me a TH title from an Open where LD was there..

Actually there are two. 2004 INA TH 2:1 LD in SF, 2005 Singapore TH 2:0 LD in SF. :D
1. i said exception to INA open

2. ok in one case out of ?? H2H with TH? Does one case disprove that a peak LD can beat a peak TH? i have said before, TH peak years were 04 and 05. Even then, TH didn't dominated LD like LD dominate everybody else today. In 04/05 years, young LD vs peak TH is around 50/50 chance.

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=259452&postcount=10

A beat B, B beat C so A should be able to beat C, is a false argument, no matter how close "A beat B" and "B beat C" are.

My 2004 OG example is not to "back up" my argument, it's to expose your "logic". :D

Btw, if I remember correctly, you are among those people who always said TH's OG title is "luck" because LD lost early. Or you are not one of those people?:confused:

I remember you also used the ABC logic to claim that ZJH were better than today's player. Did u??? :rolleyes:

There certaintly isn't any contest here. The older generation player did not have the opportunity to reach their top potential. Plus the newer player have the benefit of "knowledge" such as hold and flick, double wrist action etc.

I will have to agree that the sheer physical superiority of today's player will overwelm the player of the past, especially in men singles. It doesn't even have to be a endurance race. Fast player like LCW and Lindan will just reach the net early with a tight spinning net shot, force a short lift and then smash winners.

You must be kidding... This is what you said

"That is why TH do lousy in Opens like FO, AE, etc (except INA open of course) because there's no restriction on entry except withdrawal. Show me a TH title from an Open where LD was there.."

The "(except INA open of course)" is effective for both sentences?! :eek::eek::D

04-05 TH vs LD is 3:1. If we follow your criterion and take away those matches in Indonesia and China, it's 2:0. How come it's 50-50?!

Let's say 3:1(2:0) indeed is close to 50-50 ;). Now take a look at LD vs LCW. LD vs LCW in 2008 is 3:1 (Swiss, Thomas, OG, China). If we take away those matches held in China and Malaysia, it's 1:1; LD vs LCW in 2009 is 3:1 (AE, Swiss, Sudirman, China Masters). If we take away those held in China and Malaysia, it's again 1:1. So LD vs LCW should be like 45-55, right? :D:D:D


1. i said exception to INA open

2. ok in one case out of ?? H2H with TH? Does one case disprove that a peak LD can beat a peak TH? i have said before, TH peak years were 04 and 05. Even then, TH didn't dominated LD like LD dominate everybody else today. In 04/05 years, young LD vs peak TH is around 50/50 chance.

http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=259452&postcount=10

Actually I never did so. You should read my posts more carefully.

My argument is as follows.

First, everyone knows, if A is much superior to B in speed/power, there is no way B can match A.

Now suppose there is evidence showing that A and B have close matches.

Conclusion: There cannot be huge gap between A and B in speed/power.

Solid logic. :D

I remember you also used the ABC logic to claim that ZJH were better than today's player. Did u??? :rolleyes:

You must be kidding... This is what you said

"That is why TH do lousy in Opens like FO, AE, etc (except INA open of course) because there's no restriction on entry except withdrawal. Show me a TH title from an Open where LD was there.."

The "(except INA open of course)" is effective for both sentences?! :eek::eek::D

04-05 TH vs LD is 3:1. If we follow your criterion and take away those matches in Indonesia and China, it's 2:0. How come it's 50-50?!

Let's say 3:1(2:0) indeed is close to 50-50 ;). Now take a look at LD vs LCW. LD vs LCW in 2008 is 3:1 (Swiss, Thomas, OG, China). If we take away those matches held in China and Malaysia, it's 1:1; LD vs LCW in 2009 is 3:1 (AE, Swiss, Sudirman, China Masters). If we take away those held in China and Malaysia, it's again 1:1. So LD vs LCW should be like 45-55, right? :D:D:Dexplain why TH, the super magician, can not win an AE? or a superseries (yet) even when LD isn't there? Even uncle Peter gade has won a SS before. In big tournaments after 2006, TH often can't get pass the QF.

explain why TH, the super magician, can not win an AE? or a superseries (yet) even when LD isn't there? Even uncle Peter gade has won a SS before. In big tournaments after 2006, TH often can't get pass the QF.

hmm
is that ye333 job to explain that?:confused:

hmm
is that ye333 job to explain that?:confused:
he went this far, why not?
he should finish his job, even if TH can't:p

You aim at the wrong guy. I never claimed TH is "the super magician". :D:D

explain why TH, the super magician, can not win an AE? or a superseries (yet) even when LD isn't there? Even uncle Peter gade has won a SS before. In big tournaments after 2006, TH often can't get pass the QF.

As always, it's cooler's job to change topic when the old one is done. :D

hmm
is that ye333 job to explain that?:confused:

As always, it's cooler's job to change topic when the old one is done. :D

haiya
why say it out?:eek:
we all know already:p:D

I don't think Sonnymak is using the dubious A>B, B>C then A>C "logic". His point is, the fact that CTF/LWW (and also Candra/Tony) still can match young pairs in 2007, when they were already around 30, shows that there is no big difference in physical ability between current players and players 10 years ago.

TH cannot beat LCW now because TH is much slower now than himself in 2004. Are you saying TH in 2004 will not be able to match LCW today?:confused:

Note: even today's PG, at age 33, considerably slower than 10 years ago, can still beat LCW once in a while and push LD to the limit.

Now see who is using the A>B, B>C then A>C argument. LOL.

In 2004 OG (within one week, yeah! :D), Susilo beat LD 2:0, Boonsak beat Susilo easily (15:10, 15:1), TH toyed Boonsak (15:9, 15:2). So according to your logic, LD wouldn't even be able to push TH to the limit... :D

As always, it's cooler's job to change topic when the old one is done. :D
but i've presented my case that present best can beat old best. You haven't done so. Forget past generation best, using your example, even an active pro like TH having trouble on the current so so.