Some people are wondering why AE 2006 using still on 15 points scoring system ?

According to some news, the new scoring system was supposed to put in action at the beginning of this year. But the first 3 tournaments happen to be in Europe, the people over there dislike the new 21 points scoring system. They refuse to adopt the new system. So 21 points will be used when tournaments go back to Asia.

It was European guys proposed 7 points first, but Asian badminton organizations and their supporters didn't like it. They want the 21 points system. When the Asian guys took control of the IBF recently, they trashed the 7 points system, and enforced 21 points instead. That's also the reason the official www.worldbadminton.net (In England) down suddenly without any coorperation with the new site. The new site is in south east Asia.

Now Gade, as the leader who strongly against 21 points, asked the IBF go back to the 7 points system, or have a referendum on this issue. But the issue is who's vote can be counted.

Do we have this survey already on this forum? Which way to score is best for you? 15 ? 7 ? or 21 ?

wow
power struggle where already there is not much power

didn't know that the 7 point system was thrashed by asia while the 21 point system is now being thrashed by europe.

Now Gade, as the leader who strongly against 21 points, asked the IBF go back to the 7 points system, or have a referendum on this issue. But the issue is who's vote can be counted.

Do we have this survey already on this forum? Which way to score is best for you? 15 ? 7 ? or 21 ?

Gade is asking for a referendum on this issue. But the issue is whose vote can be counted. If just inside IBF officials, they already made decision. It is impossible to vote per each nation of this planet. right? For example, Malaysia should have more voice than Laos. Vote by players? Vote by fans? coaches? none of them is reasonable.

if i was the IBF i would ask the BF'rs:D

Gade is asking for a referendum on this issue. But the issue is whose vote can be counted. If just inside IBF officials, they already made decision. It is impossible to vote per each nation of this planet. right? For example, Malaysia should have more voice than Laos. Vote by players? Vote by fans? coaches? none of them is reasonable.

There is no use changing the scoring system....It is a waste money, energy, time. Changing the scoring system will only cause a split inside the IBF.
It is safer to stick to the old scoring system.

What should be changed in the Badminton is the ranking-computation system. The current ranking system does not reflect the true quality of the players....

The players should have a professional association to decide on this. Just like tennis or nba. If everyone unite, then they will have more say...:D
ya agree, shd ask the bfer's:D

Who can verify those claims coming from 2cents about Peter Gade is true....please point us to the sources where Peter Gade actually made comments about scoring system...otherwise...anyone can say "Gade one day in a coffee shop made a comment he supports the 21 scoring system and will fight for it"

Some people are wondering why AE 2006 using still on 15 points scoring system ?

According to some news, the new scoring system was supposed to put in action at the beginning of this year. But the first 3 tournaments happen to be in Europe, the people over there dislike the new 21 points scoring system. They refuse to adopt the new system. So 21 points will be used when tournaments go back to Asia.

It was European guys proposed 7 points first, but Asian badminton organizations and their supporters didn't like it. They want the 21 points system. When the Asian guys took control of the IBF recently, they trashed the 7 points system, and enforced 21 points instead. That's also the reason the official www.worldbadminton.net (In England) down suddenly without any coorperation with the new site. The new site is in south east Asia.

Now Gade, as the leader who strongly against 21 points, asked the IBF go back to the 7 points system, or have a referendum on this issue. But the issue is who's vote can be counted.

Do we have this survey already on this forum? Which way to score is best for you? 15 ? 7 ? or 21 ?


i perefer 9 points (the best of three with no rally points)

and the score order is like tenis scoring system:

10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50 (gameset) :D

Go Go Gade! :D :p Old scoring forevAR!

Go Go Gade! :D :p Old scoring forevAR!

you get my support as well for old scoring system :D

Old scoring system (15-system) is the best, new scoring makes badminton lose its "meaning"....hope they get back to the old one soon:crying:

Same here, if there has to be a change it would be 5x9 (serve scoring).

If not keep 3x15 serve scoring which has worked for years!

It was European guys proposed 7 points first, but Asian badminton organizations and their supporters didn't like it. They want the 21 points system. When the Asian guys took control of the IBF recently, they trashed the 7 points system, and enforced 21 points instead. That's also the reason the official www.worldbadminton.net (http://www.worldbadminton.net) (In England) down suddenly without any coorperation with the new site. The new site is in south east Asia.

For the political part, you can have a look here : http://www.badmintonforum.com/vb/showthread.php?p=330328#post330328

Same here, if there has to be a change it would be 5x9 (serve scoring).

If not keep 3x15 serve scoring which has worked for years!
I second that with a couple fo minor exceptions.

1 keep ladies singles at 5x7. Seems to fit the structure of 3 x11 quite similarly.

Ladies doubles at 5 x 7 - I feel the ladies doubles game actually became more interesting because the ladies came out more aggresive in the rallies.

i perefer 9 points (the best of three with no rally points)

and the score order is like tenis scoring system:

10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50 (gameset) :DYou have got to be kidding :eek:

I second that with a couple fo minor exceptions.

1 keep ladies singles at 5x7. Seems to fit the structure of 3 x11 quite similarly.

Ladies doubles at 5 x 7 - I feel the ladies doubles game actually became more interesting because the ladies came out more aggresive in the rallies.

Yes, agree with this.

If I remember correctly, England had proposed to reintroduce 5x9, with WS in 5x7.
Denmark had made another proposition too, can't remember which one.

I thought the reason that the AE were not using the new scoring system was because it was not going to be introduced until February. This would explain the date change also.

It is not weather IBF in Asia or Europe. Its IBF as a whole.

Life is full of surpises or as Mao suggested in his theory of "Law of the Opposites" (?).

We now have the young hankering for the old to return.

In real life, it is the old who will wish to remain young again. So change seens to be the common denominator. :confused: :rolleyes: :)

Gade is da man!!!

wow
power struggle where already there is not much power

didn't know that the 7 point system was thrashed by asia while the 21 point system is now being thrashed by europe.


Very good news:) Asia thrashed the 7 pointa system and Europe thrashed the 21 points system. Winner the 15 points system loved by all:D

Very good news:) Asia thrashed the 7 pointa system and Europe thrashed the 21 points system. Winner the 15 points system loved by all:D

Bad news is that the 21 points system is very far from having been thrashed for the moment! :(

Who can verify those claims coming from 2cents about Peter Gade is true....please point us to the sources where Peter Gade actually made comments about scoring system...otherwise...anyone can say "Gade one day in a coffee shop made a comment he supports the 21 scoring system and will fight for it"


You can read the report here:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/sports/

Sports News » http://www.channelnewsasia.com/imagegallery/store/AFP/SGE_BIM22_170106150957_00_quicklook_245x202.jpg Peter Gade

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 18 January 2006 0018 hrs

Badminton: Gade blasts new scoring system


BIRMINGHAM, England : Former world number one Peter Gade has launched a scathing attack on the new scoring system which is about to start on the world circuit.

The International Badminton Federation (IBF) recently decided to adopt point-per-rally 21-up scoring, which will be introduced soon after this week's All-England Open championships here have finished.

The IBF believes this system will be easier to understand than the traditional hand-in hand-out 15-up scoring for all events except women's singles (11-up), which has been the norm since organised badminton began more than a century ago.

But there appears to be plenty of dissent against 21-up scoring, and Gade, who will be trying to regain the All-England title this week, feels the same way.

"I don't think the IBF will like the new system," he asserted. "It is very clear to me that this is a political matter.

"Table tennis had this scoring for 50 years. They changed from this (to 11-up) with great success but those running badminton, they look at it, and say 'we want your old system and we think it will do good'.

"I can't see any reason for doing that. We had an opportunity to vote for a more intense and exciting game. It has been exciting only from about 10-all or 11-all and now, moving to 21, but it will become even worse.

"I think this is political, because Asia dismissed the five games to seven-up system and have regretted it, but won't go back to it again. Five to seven is best for badminton and I really wish it would be part of the future."

Gade is referring to is the political conflict within the IBF between Asia and its supporters and Europe and its supporters, which recently led to three different scoring systems being adopted within two years on the world circuit.

Although the five to seven experiment produced a faster, shorter, and more unpredictable version of the sport, it was not endorsed by the IBF's annual meeting.

And when the IBF council adopted an unheard of combination of scoring - men's singles and doubles to 15-up but any event involving a woman (women's singles and doubles and mixed doubles) to be played to 11-up - a bitter controversy developed.

It provoked dissent from more than 30 countries, causing an extraordinary general meeting which forced the IBF to back down, and brought the compromise of a return to traditional scoring.

Gade believes the imposition of the latest scoring system is a political reaction to that; the players will discuss their reaction to it at their annual meeting this week.

"But I don't think the players can do anything about it," the Dane said. "When we expressed our opinion to the IBF before, nothing happened. I don't think the players' opinions will matter.

"And when so many Asian players are dominated by associations and their governments it is almost impossible."

"We can send signals to the media. And every time I am asked I will react in the same way. But the IBF is in control and as long as it's like this, it's very hard for the players to change anything.

Meanwhile a complaint from Denmark about the IBF-made draw for the All-England championships has caused the men's doubles to be redrawn.

"If this draw was made by computer then one would expect a review of the programme," said Finn Traerup, the Danish performance director. "But I would think this has been made by hand.

"There are too many glitches which makes it critical to get the review because the IBF website lacks information and we don't know how people earn their ranking points any more." - AFP/dt/de

interesting article.
I found 5x7 a bit to short....so do I think 21x3 is weird

I'm voting:
-5x9 serve-scoring
-5x15 rally-scoring

interesting article.
I found 5x7 a bit to short....so do I think 21x3 is weird

I'm voting:
-5x9 serve-scoring
-5x15 rally-scoring

I'm voting
- 3x15 serve-scoring
- 3x15 rally-scoring for womens doubles :)

I'm voting
- 3x15 serve-scoring
- 3x15 rally-scoring for womens doubles :)

Seems like you're not a WD fan!! :p

Seems like your not a WD fan!! :p

Of course I am ;) .. But sometimes I feel it is too much of a good thing, time wise :) especially when they have to skip broadcasting other finals, because the time taken up with all the clear duells in wd :)..

mmm

I don't think it is very professional of Gade to launch personal attacks like that. Not that I like the system, I still don't think that's an act of professionalism.

QUOTE : "I think this is political, because Asia dismissed the five games to seven-up system and have regretted it, but won't go back to it again. Five to seven is best for badminton and I really wish it would be part of the future."

Still, what can I say. I think that if the game wants to survive in the new millenia, the players ought to show a level of professionalism and the governing body should act in the best interests of the sport and not for political gain. It's no use if we have a fantastic game with good rules and solid foundations if the governing bodies and players are acting like a bunch of knuckleheads.

mmm.

Seems like you're not a WD fan!! :p
life's too short for womens doubles....though top-level is good to watch...especially Mia Audina is amazing to watch..teh crazy shots that that women pulls off...

though I ahve to admit that in my competition teh WD is the last match to play (first 2 MS at teh same time, then 2 ws at teh same time, then on oen court one at a time: xd1, xd2, md, wd) and teh WD is some times my time to hit teh showers....

FEND, I think on the contrary this shows the high level of implication of Peter Gade in his sport.

He's not just a pro player who just bothers about his own results, he is actually concerned by future of badminton in general.

This is good I think, and we need more players like him.

On the precise topic of the scoring system, I hope the players will join their efforts to stand up against the 21 points system.
Though as Gade says, unfortunately many asian players might not be free to stand up against their own national federation's position... :rolleyes:

How about 5x11 servescoring for everyone.
And when the score is tied at 10-10, you can choose to set to 15. Which is worth thinking about. In contrast to the traditional scoring system in which setting is almost a complete no-brainer (another 3 points at 14-14 is less than another 5 at 10-10.)

Futhermore I don't see why the matches have to be shorter. I think two hours spent watching badminton a whole lot better than 90 minutes of football. :p

It seems that we have to make badminton more interesting for TV, but why make it more interesting for the people who don't play badminton, if that means making it less interesting for the people who allready play badminton.

And besides, I don't understand the argument of making it easier for the TV-viewer. If people starting badminton at the age of 5 can understand the scoring, so can the 60-year-old tv-viewer...

How about 5x11 servescoring for everyone.
And when the score is tied at 10-10, you can choose to set to 15. Which is worth thinking about. In contrast to the traditional scoring system in which setting is almost a complete no-brainer (another 3 points at 14-14 is less than another 5 at 10-10.)

No offense..But i find some matches at clublevel allready completly tedious.
I ahve nothign against women (on the contrary:D ) but a WS taking ~double it's normal time. I'd go get myself something to eat/drink....

5x7 was to short for the MD..but i guess 5x9/5x10 would do miracles

i think it's great that peter gade speaks out. I like to hear what the pros have to say. I doubt we'll hear players voice from china as sensitive issues belong to their head coach and executives to decide. Didn't L Y Bo said he's undecided and wanna to test the new 21 pt scoring system some more.

Here in Norway we had (tried out) 5*9 for a couple of years with great success. We even tried to promote it out in the world, but it was not very popular.
In fact, when I watched the Copenhagen Masters videos the comentators talked alot about the scoring system in Badminton. One of them (Poul Erik Hoier) actually had noticed the 5*9 scoring system Norway tried out and was very happy with it.
5*7 was I bit to short, especially in the Doubles matches.

nice to see a player with inetrest int he fututre of teh sport.
but I was hoping for a deeper insight...I coulnd't find any reall arguments against the new scoring. except:"I don't like it" (no offense, Gade rocks)

Well each sport had their own unique scoring system, squash had tried to change from 9 points to 15 points and table tennis had changed from the 21 points, wonder why badminton must go for the scoring system which had been used for ages by table tennis and had decided to discard it to make table tennis more interesting????

Well each sport had their own unique scoring system, squash had tried to change from 9 points to 15 points and table tennis had changed from the 21 points, wonder why badminton must go for the scoring system which had been used for ages by table tennis and had decided to discard it to make table tennis more interesting????
arguably, why did tabletennis change from a succesfull system?
the verdict lies in the fact if the "new table tennis scoring" did, or did not, popularize the sport...
and is this because of á change, or because teh scoring is indeed superior..

Well each sport had their own unique scoring system, squash had tried to change from 9 points to 15 points and table tennis had changed from the 21 points, wonder why badminton must go for the scoring system which had been used for ages by table tennis and had decided to discard it to make table tennis more interesting????

Do you know why table tennis changed its scoring system?

Actually volley ball changed its scoring system, from what was the same as badminton now, to the current scoring system (which is almost the same as old table tennis, and also almost the same as badminton going to use from 2006/02/01.

The reasons for volley ball and badminton changes are the same - to control the playing time. Since the old systems (both 15x3 or 7x5) count only the net results, it theoretically can last forever. The new system is to count the total points, therefore, the total playing time is well under control, then better to sell it to TV time slots. From this angle to view, I do think the new system 21 points is much better in 3 ways, while the 7x5 system is a failure.

1) shortest playing time. the old 15 points system can be very short for two players different very much in playing levels. This is not good, If the AE mens final only last 15 minutes (15:0 and 15:0 also, total 30 points), then TV channel has nothing to fill in. While the 7x5 system not improve this, instead, it makes it short (7:0, 7:0, 7:0, totally 21 points.), while 21x3 elongates the points to 21:0, 21:0, totally 42 points, so the shortest time become longer, the TV time gets filled.

2) the longest playing time, the old 15 points system can be very long for dog fighting. Theoretically, it could be infinite. While the 21x3 system fixes it tremendously. There are totally 29:28,28:29, 29:28 totally 151 points to play at most comparing to the infinity in both 7x5 or 15x3. And 9x5 almost the same as 15x3 in worst case scenario, 7x5 may reduced the total time from 15 points system a little bit, but not much.

3) average playing time. Both 21x3 and 7x5 can reduce the average playing time, but 21x3 put it in a controllable way, while 7x5 adds much more volatility in the time fluctuations which makes the TV broadcasting difficult.

As to play, I do think the hand-in hand-out way more fun. If I believe I can beat someone, it adds more confident to myself. On the other hand, if I am not confident at all, I like the point per rally way to steal a victory from the stronger opponents.

Yes, he's right in speaking out. But I do not think launching personal attacks is going to help the cause. Speaking out is one thing, launching a personal attack is another.

Anything except rally point :mad:. If your having a slow start your finished. It also makes it impratical to try to tire your opponent.

Anything except rally point :mad:. If your having a slow start your finished. It also makes it impratical to try to tire your opponent.

yes, some strategy involve tiring your opponent out which mean some sacrifical points in the beginning. With rally points, one cant employ this strategy.

yes, some strategy involve tiring your opponent out which mean some sacrifical points in the beginning. With rally points, one cant employ this strategy.

agree, and one more thing, late starter players usually won't like this system (i.e Taufik), because the moment they start to get into his/her game then the opponent's score already 20-something, then how to comeback? :D

interesting article.
I found 5x7 a bit to short....so do I think 21x3 is weird

I'm voting:
-5x9 serve-scoring
-5x15 rally-scoring
I agree with yours.

I think 5x15 rally-scoring system is better than 3x21 one ---nothing will be reformed except rally-scoring system instead of old hand-in-hand one.

Speaking out is one thing, launching a personal attack is another.

Did we read the same article? Where was there a personal attack??? :confused:

Do you know why table tennis changed its scoring system?

Actually volley ball changed its scoring system, from what was the same as badminton now, to the current scoring system (which is almost the same as old table tennis, and also almost the same as badminton going to use from 2006/02/01.

The reasons for volley ball and badminton changes are the same - to control the playing time. Since the old systems (both 15x3 or 7x5) count only the net results, it theoretically can last forever. The new system is to count the total points, therefore, the total playing time is well under control, then better to sell it to TV time slots. From this angle to view, I do think the new system 21 points is much better in 3 ways, while the 7x5 system is a failure.

1) shortest playing time. the old 15 points system can be very short for two players different very much in playing levels. This is not good, If the AE mens final only last 15 minutes (15:0 and 15:0 also, total 30 points), then TV channel has nothing to fill in. While the 7x5 system not improve this, instead, it makes it short (7:0, 7:0, 7:0, totally 21 points.), while 21x3 elongates the points to 21:0, 21:0, totally 42 points, so the shortest time become longer, the TV time gets filled.

2) the longest playing time, the old 15 points system can be very long for dog fighting. Theoretically, it could be infinite. While the 21x3 system fixes it tremendously. There are totally 29:28,28:29, 29:28 totally 151 points to play at most comparing to the infinity in both 7x5 or 15x3. And 9x5 almost the same as 15x3 in worst case scenario, 7x5 may reduced the total time from 15 points system a little bit, but not much.

3) average playing time. Both 21x3 and 7x5 can reduce the average playing time, but 21x3 put it in a controllable way, while 7x5 adds much more volatility in the time fluctuations which makes the TV broadcasting difficult.

As to play, I do think the hand-in hand-out way more fun. If I believe I can beat someone, it adds more confident to myself. On the other hand, if I am not confident at all, I like the point per rally way to steal a victory from the stronger opponents.

well said actually, I think we should give the 21 points more time to speak for itself than give it a ban so soon without a fair mind.

And if 21 points is too short then maybe 25, or 30 each set. Until we find the right number. But one thing we must not discard is the fact that TV does help to promote the sport and so we must somehow crop with it.

well said actually, I think we should give the 21 points more time to speak for itself than give it a ban so soon without a fair mind.

And if 21 points is too short then maybe 25, or 30 each set. Until we find the right number. But one thing we must not discard is the fact that TV does help to promote the sport and so we must somehow crop with it.

But if cropping it up is the "goal" wouldn't 5x7 ot 5x9 be better options. than for example 3x30-rally?? Why is it impossible to have timed breakes instead of breaks based on score? (would probably be more prefferred by tv-stations planning ad-spots)??

Indeed Twobeer, I couldn't think of any other good reason for it..

But if cropping it up is the "goal" wouldn't 5x7 ot 5x9 be better options. than for example 3x30-rally?? Why is it impossible to have timed breakes instead of breaks based on score? (would probably be more prefferred by tv-stations planning ad-spots)??

Like 2cents has stayed in his post, time can vary much in the old point system. And as well I am just saying 3X30 is an example, 5X7 might as well be an good idea. But regardless on the number of points, we are making changes at least and we should see it as a good thing rather than bad.

Like 2cents has stayed in his post, time can vary much in the old point system. And as well I am just saying 3X30 is an example, 5X7 might as well be an good idea. But regardless on the number of points, we are making changes at least and we should see it as a good thing rather than bad.

Change is not bad.. Doing the wrong changes for the right (or wrong) reasons are BAD!! Avoiding the REAL issues and focusing on political-issues instead of trying to find out what the the root problem really is, is BAD!! Wasting so much effort and resources to change a perfectly valid, working scoring system is INSANE...

If fixed length games are the ideal.. why not make them timed (as basketball or whatever).. I don't think its a great idea and i think the probelm description is invalid.. But it would make more sense.. there is no time-slot guarantee in a 3x21 game neither..

Also I fail to see the point of actually making an uneven game longer, just to make the avergage game length more similar..

It's sad that badminton is as much a game as a political debate. :( Why can't everyone just agree on something so we can continue watching and playing. :o

It is true that there always have been some power block struggles in badminton, especially between the Asian Badminton Confederation (ABC) and the old IBF. It started way back in the 1970s when there was really bad blood between the IBF and the ABC, with the ABC boycotting the then Mecca of badminton, the All England, although some Asian countries did break ranks in some years. This is one of the reasons Rudy Hartono was never seriously challenged by Asian players in some of the AE championships.
The 7 points system was a Europeon initiative, which the ABC killed. Now that the IBF has moved to Asia, swiftly followed by the new scoring system, the power shift maybe too fast and drastic for the powers have been. If this is not handled carefully-Peter Gade has fired the first salvo-these are dangerous times. I hope sanity reigns. It shouldn't be seen or used as payback time.

I too think it may do more harm than good the way the lastest drama has been played out.

Frankly, Peter Gade is well loved by many, the West as well as the East. It will not be in Peter's interest to air his views in public which can be seen to be detriment to the world body. Worse still, the media has made it seem as though he is championing the move against the new scoring system.

As I have said in another thread, there is a procedure to be followed and the pros especially must be made aware that they are doing the right thing, irrespective of whether their views are ultimately proven right in the end. Otherwise there will be no order and chaos may prevail.

I also wish that the leaders are more level-headed in these transitionary and sensitive times as Taneepak has pointed out.

Certainly, we don't want to see a repeat of the breakup of the world body again. Unity is Strength and Divided, we will Fall. We can't afford that to happen surely, especailly when things are looking brighter for badminton worldwide. Now that the baton has passed to the East after a historical passage of time, we should let the new IBF Council settle down and do its work as best as possible. We should lend whatever support we are capable of.

Unity, Peace and Progress is what I wish for world badminton as my New Year gift. :)

It's sad that badminton is as much a game as a political debate. :( Why can't everyone just agree on something so we can continue watching and playing. :o

everything that grows and involves money, especially big money, becomes political because people would want control over it...including our beloved badminton:mad:

It is true that there always have been some power block struggles in badminton, especially between the Asian Badminton Confederation (ABC) and the old IBF. It started way back in the 1970s when there was really bad blood between the IBF and the ABC, with the ABC boycotting the then Mecca of badminton, the All England, although some Asian countries did break ranks in some years. This is one of the reasons Rudy Hartono was never seriously challenged by Asian players in some of the AE championships.


The only absent serious challenge to Rudy Hartono in the late 60s and 70s came from China only and not Asian players. China created a rival badminton federation called the World Badminton Federation (WBF) as a rival to IBF. The WBF mainly consisted of obscure communist nations like North Korea, Vietnam, etc and were no badminton powerhouses. On the other hand Asian players from Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Hongkong, Taiwan, Japan, India, South Korea have always participated in AE. The boycott only came from the WBF (the Chinese camp) and not the ABC. China participated in the Asian Games 1974 where Hou Chia Chang was the gold medalist and Liem Swie King the bronze medalist (Rudy Hartono was absent).

The only absent serious challenge to Rudy Hartono in the late 60s and 70s came from China only and not Asian players. China created a rival badminton federation called the World Badminton Federation (WBF) as a rival to IBF. The WBF mainly consisted of obscure communist nations like North Korea, Vietnam, etc and were no badminton powerhouses. On the other hand Asian players from Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand, Hongkong, Taiwan, Japan, India, South Korea have always participated in AE. The boycott only came from the WBF (the Chinese camp) and not the ABC. China participated in the Asian Games 1974 where Hou Chia Chang was the gold medalist and Liem Swie King the bronze medalist (Rudy Hartono was absent).

Rudi's era was not as competitive as today's.

Frankly i think among things that badminton lack is Personalities among players (off court & on it)

Gade standing up and not being 100% politically correct may be for the good of the sport as well.... Most of the time toeing the red tape of beuracracy accomplish nothing.

after all, these rules are just more like guidelines heheheheh

I time to take it to the man!

The Borneon BaddyNut


I too think it may do more harm than good the way the lastest drama has been played out.

Frankly, Peter Gade is well loved by many, the West as well as the East. It will not be in Peter's interest to air his views in public which can be seen to be detriment to the world body. Worse still, the media has made it seem as though he is championing the move against the new scoring system.

As I have said in another thread, there is a procedure to be followed and the pros especially must be made aware that they are doing the right thing, irrespective of whether their views are ultimately proven right in the end. Otherwise there will be no order and chaos may prevail.

I also wish that the leaders are more level-headed in these transitionary and sensitive times as Taneepak has pointed out.

Certainly, we don't want to see a repeat of the breakup of the world body again. Unity is Strength and Divided, we will Fall. We can't afford that to happen surely, especailly when things are looking brighter for badminton worldwide. Now that the baton has passed to the East after a historical passage of time, we should let the new IBF Council settle down and do its work as best as possible. We should lend whatever support we are capable of.

Unity, Peace and Progress is what I wish for world badminton as my New Year gift. :)

Here is a history of IBF politics. Upto 1932 the IBF was a virtual English dictatorship. The same year saw a rebellion against this by the Irish, Scotsman, and Welshman who fumed with the unjustness of having only 3 total votes against the English's 19 votes. These rebels demanded to be 'given the key' or else? In 1934 the dictator 'surrendered' and handed over control of the laws and the international game. The IBF was born. But still, 7 out of the 13 strong Executive Committee were English and only two came from outside the UK. Any President other than Sir George Thomas, whose name is remembered in the Thomas Cup, was unthinkable. However, after 21 years as the supremo he retired in 1955.
By 1954 membership of the IBF had grown to 31, which included 11 Eastern Europeon countries. It was not until 1959 that an IBF Council meeting was held for the first time outside England, in Amsterdam. It was not until 1976 that an AGM was held abroad, in Bangkok. These were the early days of the power shift away from England.
In 1970s the 'Apartheid' question gave rise to demonstrations, player walkouts and national outcries for S. Africa's expulsion.
The major conflict has been the acceptance of China as a member. The IBF refused to accept China's conditional demand to kick out Taiwan. There were also discontent from the smaller African and Asian countries who demanded one nation, one vote. Impasse arose. Relations worsened. The Asian Badminton Confederation attempted a partially boycott of the All-England Championships. They held the 4 Home Countries, England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, each with a massive 3 votes, responsible for derailing China's entry and the one nation, one vote idea. In 1977 Taiwan was expelled but an appeal to the English courts reversed this. In direct response to this, in 1978 a breakaway World Badminton Federation was formed and it took another 3 years of patient negotiation before China was admitted and Taiwan became Chinese Taipeh. Then and only then did the two world badminton bodies, the IBF and the WBF, became one.
The IBF move to the East is a seismic shift. Let us hope there are no bad fallouts from this, but current signs are ominous : the rejection by the ABC of the Europeon-initiated 5x7 system, the new 3x21 scoring system, the choice of using the high-profile AE venue (Yonex, incidentally is a master on this) to start the first salvo against the new system, the high decible complaints about the new IBF software messing up the rankings, the move to KL, could fan the same problems that we went through with China's entry.

You forget in your list the new completely crap IBF website... :rolleyes::o

Poor badminton... :(

You forget in your list the new completely crap IBF website... :rolleyes::o

Poor badminton... :(

Usually in a handover, the incoming and the outgoing work together until all is well. There are of course exceptions when the outgoing will have nothing to do with the incoming. This happens in all human endeavour. I have gone through this many times. Just two nights ago, the block of apartments where I live suddenly had the sewage water flushing system disrupted. This happened on the very day the manager was fired and there was no handover to the new replacement. In my old days when I was young enough, I used to take over very hostile positions in corporate reshuffles.

I think IBF has bigger problems than a simple hand-over problem.

There is a clear political problem, IBF is failing finding solutions to the real problems and completely lacking a coherent strategy.
For example, the world pro circuit has not changed for years and is starting to be completely obsolete.
The catastrophic participation in China Masters is a perfect illustration.

Yet the only propositions IBF could find are a very controversed new scoring format and the (non less controversed) use of plastic shuttles.
Completely unlinked with the current problems!

The lack of transparency of IBF organization and its trouble to follow correctly its statuses are also big issues, which make IBF untrustful for most national badminton organizations, but also multi-sport governing bodies such as IOC.

Rudi's era was not as competitive as today's.

Don't you start!

The reason it was not as competitive as today is simply because one player like Rudy Hartono was outstanding way above the rest of the players and dominating the sport completely. It became competitive after the decline of Rudy Hartono. The sport today wouldn't be competitive if there was one outstanding player completely dominating the sport but since there isn't such one player the sport is seen as competitive.:D

Don't you start!

The reason it was not as competitive as today is simply because one player like Rudy Hartono was outstanding way above the rest of the players and dominating the sport completely. It became competitive after the decline of Rudy Hartono. The sport today wouldn't be competitive if there was one outstanding player completely dominating the sport but since there isn't such one player the sport is seen as competitive.:D

Sabathiel, let us confine ourselves to the subject of this thread. We can argue about how good this player or that player is without conclusion, simply because nobody knows for sure.

Sabathiel, let us confine ourselves to the subject of this thread. We can argue about how good this player or that player is without conclusion, simply because nobody knows for sure.

I second you here!
This fight between Indra & Sabathiel is getting rather boring.
Always the same discussion whatever the thread and the subject... :rolleyes: