Shame on IBF

[jkusmanto]

The new scoring system should be used in the short time.
Because I have never red a whole system, I have looked for it in IBF website.
On the left side of the first page, there is a clickable image "New Rally Points SYstem". I clicked on it and it took me to another page where 4 options can be choosed.

New Rally Points System
1. Rally_Point_Scoring_System
2. Rally_point_one_serve_in_doubles
3. Rally Point Scoring Score
4. 2006 - Rally Point Scoring Score Sheet,

The last 3 options are the right one.
But the first one is the old system : "The best of 5, 11 points". :D :confused: :rolleyes:
How come ????? Mr. Gunalan ?????

[CWB001]

The new scoring system should be used in the short time.

Because I have never red a whole system, I have looked for it in IBF website.

On the left side of the first page, there is a clickable image "New Rally Points SYstem". I clicked on it and it took me to another page where 4 options can be choosed.



New Rally Points System

1. Rally_Point_Scoring_System

2. Rally_point_one_serve_in_doubles

3. Rally Point Scoring Score

4. 2006 - Rally Point Scoring Score Sheet,



The last 3 options are the right one.

But the first one is the old system : "The best of 5, 11 points".

How come ????? Mr. Gunalan ?????



Not only that, but these laws have clearly been written by somebody with a poor grasp of English. A couple of examples:



"11.1.4 The player of the receiving side standing in diagonally opposite service court of the server shall be the receiver."



This is just clumsy, poor English.



“11.3.1 After the service is returned, the shuttle may be hit alternately by either player of the serving side and either player of the receiving side until the shuttle ceases to be in play (Law 15).”



This means that a doubles game has to be played like table tennis with each member of a pair talking alternate shots.



This all just illustrates how badly implemented this scheme is, and demonstrates the IBF’s lack of intelligent thinking.

[seven]

IBF is a joke! :mad:

And this is only the "emerged" part of the iceberg... :rolleyes:

Badminton is a great sport, we just have a really crap corrupted incompetent governing body... :(

[chickenpoodle]

“11.3.1 After the service is returned, the shuttle may be hit alternately by either player of the serving side and either player of the receiving side until the shuttle ceases to be in play (Law 15).”

This means that a doubles game has to be played like table tennis with each member of a pair talking alternate shots.

uhhhhhh whaaaaaaa? this is dumb.

but wait! i got it.
law 11.3.1 (1) will read "players will have to trade racquets too, between shots, during the rally, until the shuttle ceases to be in play!!!!"

this is getting worse.

[hcyong]

Not only that, but these laws have clearly been written by somebody with a poor grasp of English. A couple of examples:



"11.1.4 The player of the receiving side standing in diagonally opposite service court of the server shall be the receiver."



This is just clumsy, poor English.




Could have been better stated, but otherwise I see nothing wrong with that statement.



“11.3.1 After the service is returned, the shuttle may be hit alternately by either player of the serving side and either player of the receiving side until the shuttle ceases to be in play (Law 15).”



This means that a doubles game has to be played like table tennis with each member of a pair talking alternate shots.



This all just illustrates how badly implemented this scheme is, and demonstrates the IBF’s lack of intelligent thinking.

... hit alternately by [A] and [B] until the shuttle ceases to be in play.

where A is either player of the serving side
and B is either player of the receiving side

[hcyong]

IBF is a joke! :mad:

And this is only the "emerged" part of the iceberg... :rolleyes:

Badminton is a great sport, we just have a really crap corrupted incompetent governing body... :(

IBF could be more competent, but corrupted? This is the first time I hear of corruption in IBF.

[seven]

IBF could be more competent, but corrupted? This is the first time I hear of corruption in IBF.

I've heard many bad things about IBF, which I would prefer not hearing, or rather not existing! :rolleyes:
Including the way the votes are held...

I am rather pessimistic on chances of things getting better, and on chances of badminton having a real serious and competent governing body... :(

[CWB001]

Could have been better stated, but otherwise I see nothing wrong with that statement.



Well try this clearer and grammatically better version then:

"11.1.4 The player of the receiving side standing in the service court diagonally opposite to the server shall be the receiver."


As for the other law (11.3.1), what is wrong with the esisting version? It is clear, grammatical and unambiguous:



"11.3.1 After the service is returned, the shuttle may be hit by either player of the serving side and then by either player of the receiving side, and so on, until the shuttle ceases to be in play."

[hcyong]

Well try this clearer and grammatically better version then:

"11.1.4 The player of the receiving side standing in the service court diagonally opposite to the server shall be the receiver."


As for the other law (11.3.1), what is wrong with the esisting version? It is clear, grammatical and unambiguous:



"11.3.1 After the service is returned, the shuttle may be hit by either player of the serving side and then by either player of the receiving side, and so on, until the shuttle ceases to be in play."



Yes, you stated them more clearly. Like I said, it could have been more clearly stated, but otherwise they are still legitimate.

[Bbn]

I've heard many bad things about IBF, which I would prefer not hearing, or rather not existing! :rolleyes:
Including the way the votes are held...

I am rather pessimistic on chances of things getting better, and on chances of badminton having a real serious and competent governing body... :(


Well just in a democracy we let people run for office,if they fail vote them out.

Labour paarty vs conservative, democrats vs ?? whatever parties exist in France etc.

But not torching people's embassies or sending in troops.

[CWB001]

Like I said, it could have been more clearly stated, but otherwise they are still legitimate.

I don't agree. It is vital that the laws of any sport are well phrased and grammatically correct to eliminate any possible doubt about their meaning.

The final draft should always be written by somebody who is completely fluent in English (and highly capable of writing unambiguously in it) - preferably someone whose first language is English.

I suspect that the IBF website document has been thrown together by a lower quality writer, probably using English as a second language.

[CWB001]

But not torching people's embassies or sending in troops.

How is this related to badminton? Has the IBF done this too? It is almost as bad as changing to rally point scoring!

[seven]

Well just in a democracy we let people run for office,if they fail vote them out.

Labour paarty vs conservative, democrats vs ?? whatever parties exist in France etc.

But not torching people's embassies or sending in troops.

Agree about this! :p
Politics and parties in France are slightly more complicated than this, but they have ensured a "non-proportional" voting system which ensures that always the same ones stay at the power anyway! ;)

[seven]

In case it wasn't clear, IBF clearly does not work in a democratic way.
For it to be democratic, it would already need votes to take place in a democratic way... :rolleyes:

[taneepak]

In any tribe-and humans are very tribal-the smart ones always rule and the bottom ones always grumble. The smart ones are the minority, but for some strange reasons the majority bottom ones are more inclined to vote for the smart ones to be their leader. Sometimes they kick out a smartie leader, only to vote in another smartie. :confused:

[cxytdn]

It's gone on the IBF website.

[CWB001]

Somebody must be listening.

[taneepak]

It's gone on the IBF website.

Maybe a forum member brought this to their attention. They are responding, it seems. Well, why not try to contact the IBF directly with constructive suggestions, like drafting a well written set of badminton laws in English, Chinese, Bahasa Indonesia/Malaysia, Hindi, Japanese, Korean, Danish, Nigerian, etc? I think there are more non-English speaking badminton players out there. BF has enough expertise in most languages. Let us share our translation and drafting expertise with the IBF.

[seven]

In any tribe-and humans are very tribal-the smart ones always rule and the bottom ones always grumble. The smart ones are the minority, but for some strange reasons the majority bottom ones are more inclined to vote for the smart ones to be their leader. Sometimes they kick out a smartie leader, only to vote in another smartie. :confused:

This is a matter of power, not smartness.
Or do you think Mr G.W.Bush is the smartest guy on earth?? :p (sorry this is going off topic! :rolleyes:;))

[taneepak]

This is a matter of power, not smartness.
Or do you think Mr G.W.Bush is the smartest guy on earth?? :p (sorry this is going off topic! :rolleyes:;))

Sometimes we don't see the real boss. The late Deng Siow Ping never had any official title but he was the real 'emperor'.

[jug8man]

Sometimes we don't see the real boss. The late Deng Siow Ping never had any official title but he was the real 'emperor'.

Are you suggesting Someone is Running IBF by PROXY? :eek:

Gosh! The thickening plot is squishing my brain ! :D

The Borneon BaddyNut

[Loh]

In case it wasn't clear, IBF clearly does not work in a democratic way.
For it to be democratic, it would already need votes to take place in a democratic way... :rolleyes:

It seems to me that democracy works in many ways - depending on who and where you are. The notion of democracy means different things to different people, not just the English or American brand of democracy. :D

Imposing one's brand of democracy on others may create a lot of problems for the culture, historical background. state of economic development, literacy rate, etc, differ from country to country. Often what we think is democratic or not democratic may be viewed entirely differently by others.

In many underdeveloped and developing countries, what counted most for the impoverished people is not democracy or politics but the ability to survive by the day. And it is in such countries that the income disparity between the poor and the rich, the powerless and the powerful, remains rather great.

But when the income gap becomes unbearable, when the general populace felt they have to fight back in order to survive, when they think that the present rulers are incompetent and corrupted and take no heed of their welfare, then that is when social disorder and people power can emerge and overthrow the government. Power changes hands, sometimes with the unnecessary loss of human lives and property, but if the new leadership proves to be ineffective and corruption again rears its ugly head, they will be back to square one, unfortunately :(

Coming back to the IBF, which has a long and colourful history and many of its rules and practices have been set over the years with changes and new ones being added from time to time, it has done relatively well compared with some other organizations which have still not made it to the Olympics. It's initial progress has been slow but looking back to the past few years, much has been done and if Punch Gunalan has his way, he will make badminton second to none in the racket sport and even overtaking tennis as the most glamourous TV event.

Had the IBF not been democratic, it would have long disappeared to be replaced by a more competent organization. Then the Europeans will continue to dominate its proceedings and Asia and Punch Gunalan will have no chance to make their mark! The IBF headquarters would not have left its birthplace for its long West-East journey to Kuala Lumpur. And mind you, the IBF Council is multinational, not confined to just Asian representatives. So the IBF is still democratic in this sense as the decision-making is not monopolized by a single person (dictator) or a homogeneous group - it is cross-cultural, cross-border, cross-national.

I would not base my judgement on hearsays. Rather I want to see the results of IBF's decisions - whether they put action to words.

As regards the representational voting system of the IBF, I also find this rather unsatisfactory because they base it on the number of active players in a country - the more of such players, the more the number of votes for that country, although there is a maximum. If the IBF wants to be truly international, they should not discriminate against the smaller countries with less active players. One country one vote seems to be more democratic. But then how do you prevent vote-buying (or corruption)? :confused:

Again, democracy means different things to different people. ;)

[taneepak]

Are you suggesting Someone is Running IBF by PROXY? :eek:

Gosh! The thickening plot is squishing my brain ! :D

The Borneon BaddyNut

No, I was referring to elected leaders of countries, more so in a democracy. The elected head is chosen, powers divided and shared, only after a lot of horse trading. In some countries a political party of one can be a king maker. The more democratic we become the more our elected leaders become a product of institutions. At the other extreme end the lion king is a true alpha king of his pride. At our end, we do see some real naturally born leaders, but only in less developed countries. In more developed countries, the elected leader needs more help to be what he is.

[taneepak]

I agree with Loh, who puts it in a very mild way.
There have been a lot of virulent attacks specifically on, and nakedly aimed at, Punch Gunalan but using the IBF as a front. The IBF is multi-national but the attacks on the IBF have singled out Punch Gunalan. Now, this is not lost on forum members, especially those from Asian countries and in particular Malaysia. The recent shift of badminton power from the west to the east, the controversies over the west-supported 7 points system and the new east-supported 21 points system, the angry outburst over the recent new IBF software instead of understanding, and 'rubbing salt into wounds' of singling out Punch Gunalan for publu lynching, are a dangerous mix that could get out of hand.

[hcyong]

As regards the representational voting system of the IBF, I also find this rather unsatisfactory because they base it on the number of active players in a country - the more of such players, the more the number of votes for that country, although there is a maximum. If the IBF wants to be truly international, they should not discriminate against the smaller countries with less active players. One country one vote seems to be more democratic. But then how do you prevent vote-buying (or corruption)? :confused:


I rather disagree with this. It is like a parliament representation where one MP represents 1 million people and another represents 1 thousand. It is not fair that they have one vote each because the voice of the majority is in danger of being lost. (Say the 1 thousand people are rich people who want to cut the rich tax and increase the poor tax.)

Ideally, the members of IBF should be each individual who holds badminton true, people like us who are fans of badminton first and foremost (more than being fans of Lin Dan or Taufik etc.). And each of us should have a vote and when we vote, we think about badminton as a whole without selfish national or continental bias.

But that is practically impossible so we are stuck with the current IBF. But you are right when you say IBF is multi-national, not just a Punch Gunalan realm. The move from Europe to Asia is a decision of all, and so are the changes proposed.

[Loh]

I rather disagree with this. It is like a parliament representation where one MP represents 1 million people and another represents 1 thousand. It is not fair that they have one vote each because the voice of the majority is in danger of being lost. (Say the 1 thousand people are rich people who want to cut the rich tax and increase the poor tax.)


I can't say I disagree with you on the MP represenational system. But you must remember that whilst the MP is engaged in domestic politics, within one's own country, IBF is supposed to be multi-national, in a way a mini-UN.

As such, IBF should not discriminate if its main objective is to promote badminton worldwide. The present voting systems is akin to a "big brother telling a small brother that the latter should get less" because he joins the family later and he is smaller in size.

I don't know the history of present IBF voting system (whether it was decided even before IBF becomes international) and how they came to such a decision, but it doesn't appear to be 'democratic' if you agree with the general principle of "one-man-one vote" system. Imagine in a democracy, a poor man, a woman, a person from a lower social strata or a lower caste group, get only a fraction of the vote of the ordinary citizen, one would question what sort of a democracy that is!

Though there remain varying degrees of development among member IBF countries, the leaders of such countries are educated and they understand the principles of both discrimination and fairness. They joined the IBF because they are interested in the game and want their countries to improve. One way for international badminton to move forward is to discard this uneven voting system and to treat every nation alike in the decision-making process.

[seven]

But then how do you prevent vote-buying (or corruption)? :confused:

Yes, you've understood the problem! :D;)


Again, democracy means different things to different people. ;)

Democracy does have a precise meaning, but if you take it strictly, you certainly can't consider USA as a democracy. (nor France actually)


About the efficiency of IBF, I'm sorry I can't agree with you Loh.
Badminton is (or was?) one of the most popular sport worldwide and is as old as most major sports, and I think IBF has been pretty unefficient over the years to promote and structure the sport, mainly due to internal political problems... :rolleyes:

[seven]

I rather disagree with this. It is like a parliament representation where one MP represents 1 million people and another represents 1 thousand. It is not fair that they have one vote each because the voice of the majority is in danger of being lost. (Say the 1 thousand people are rich people who want to cut the rich tax and increase the poor tax.)

Ideally, the members of IBF should be each individual who holds badminton true, people like us who are fans of badminton first and foremost (more than being fans of Lin Dan or Taufik etc.). And each of us should have a vote and when we vote, we think about badminton as a whole without selfish national or continental bias.

But that is practically impossible so we are stuck with the current IBF. But you are right when you say IBF is multi-national, not just a Punch Gunalan realm. The move from Europe to Asia is a decision of all, and so are the changes proposed.

Agree with you, the number of registered players of each national federation has to be taken into account in the votes.

[taneepak]

Member associations' votes decide who run the IBF. The way votes are being alloted to each member association has evolved over the years, depending on who actually have the votes at a given period. In the old days a small country with few good players could run the whole show because the rules and the votes at that time allowed them to do so. Currently, we have a compromise system, a little of the old and the new. The new system allows 1 to 5 votes for each member associatiom, based on their number of active players. The number of active players and vote entitlement is not linear, so any new country new to badminton will have at least one vote. The present system is not perfect but is a system that keeps the peace. It is also a great improvement over all the older systems, which were downright discriminatory. Over the longer term, the voting system will be closer to one country one vote. But when one country one vote arrives, we can expect the demise of the Thomas, Uber, Surdiman Cup. In their place, we will have the World Cup, Continental Cup, National Cups, Premier League, etc.

[Bbn]

Since Seven seems to be against the IBF (or is it the present IBF) why not give your views on what is a better alternative,

I am sure it would be interesting as most of us are not involved with them

and merely listen to rumours.

Where I come from criticism is only accepted if it is constructive, not bitching around and nit picking. As some of you claim, decisions must be based on facts, research etc.

In some societies it is accepted practice to find minor faults with people

to remove them from position as in football in a certain country.it is a matter of culture so "watch your back".

To me it is like saying one has the right to divorce one's wife if one finds out

later that performance in bed or written English is below par.

So let's hear it, most of us are not the people who torch your embassy

if we do not agree if what you believe, (assuming it is sensible.)

[CWB001]

So let's hear it, most of us are not the people who torch your embassy

if we do not agree if what you believe, (assuming it is sensible.)

So it is OK to torch an embassy if what someone says is not sensible?

[seven]

Since Seven seems to be against the IBF (or is it the present IBF) why not give your views on what is a better alternative

I may disappoint you but I am not candidate for entering IBF board! ;)

We have already made propositions in threads about scoring system on more important things to reform, including : grand prix circuit (too many equivalent tournaments), world ranking system (too many points for first round losers) etc...

There would be many more things to do, but I don't see the point in spending hours thinking on them, when we have no power of decision anyway... :rolleyes:
(it's IBF board's job to do the thinking)

[seven]

Now there are objective ways of assessing IBF's efficiency over the years :
take other sports created around the same dates (19th century) then compare their development until now.

Also compare the number of badminton players in the world to its TV coverage, and compare it with figures of other sports.

etc...

For each area, you can do this type of measurements and see if you think IBF has been efficient.

Also, just for fun, count the number of times scoring system has changed in the past five (or ten) years in each sport... (OK that one's too easy :p )

[seven]

By the way Bbn, I am not against IBF by principle.

I have been defending IBF decisions or rules quite often on this forum in fact.

And I know there are many historical reasons for IBF to be what it is now too.

But it is true that many recent IBF decisions have been really bad, and I think the current team is really not up to it, and are harming our sport a lot!! :(:mad:

[Bbn]

I may disappoint you but I am not candidate for entering IBF board! ;)

We have already made propositions in threads about scoring system on more important things to reform, including : grand prix circuit (too many equivalent tournaments), world ranking system (too many points for first round losers) etc...

There would be many more things to do, but I don't see the point in spending hours thinking on them, when we have no power of decision anyway... :rolleyes:
(it's IBF board's job to do the thinking)

I dont have figures to support me, but what really interests me is squash.

At one time in the 80s it was even bigger than badminton, but recently Malaysia produced its first world champion and no one watched the event on Tv because itwas never televised.

And the big players in Squash are the British and Australians !

Well perhaps it is an eg. I can think of where baddy has performed better.

[Bbn]

i think I understand what the IBF is up to ;

In 1980s squash in Msia was big time, everyone watched Jahangir Khan

on TV and liked to play like him, squash courts were built everywhere and you had to queue to play.

Today squash has never been aired on TV , there are courts everywhere but no one wants to play as they have no TV exposure, no one sells racquets etc.Few know how to play the game.

Then there is Table Tennis, youngsters refrain from playing the game, they

dont want to be associated with the scrawny bespectacled nerds seen on Tv, until it is no longer seen on Tv.

Youngsters shy away from the two, they rather be like the glamorous Beckham they see on TV or Michael Jordan or Tiger Wood s or Michelle Wie.

It's got a lot to do with commrecilisation just as in pop music.

[seven]

I dont have figures to support me, but what really interests me is squash.

At one time in the 80s it was even bigger than badminton, but recently Malaysia produced its first world champion and no one watched the event on Tv because itwas never televised.

And the big players in Squash are the British and Australians !

Well perhaps it is an eg. I can think of where baddy has performed better.

Squash :
* doesn't have the same history as badminton
* has never been popular worldwide
* has not developped via "associative" federations but via private clubs
* (therefore?) is more expensive to play at (=> reserved to an "elite")
* is repetitive and uninteresting on TV (except for specialists)
* has never been olympic

So can we really compare? (and finding one worse example wouldn't prove much anyway... :rolleyes: )

[taneepak]

Agree with you, the number of registered players of each national federation has to be taken into account in the votes.

Really? In Asia, particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia, there are many players who are not registered players. I would say the unregistered players there probably comprise more than 95%. Some of these unregistered players can beat the hell out of grade B or B+ players in countries that play in badminton league matches.

[taneepak]

not[/b] candidate for entering IBF board! ;)

We have already made propositions in threads about scoring system on more important things to reform, including : grand prix circuit (too many equivalent tournaments), world ranking system (too many points for first round losers) etc...

There would be many more things to do, but I don't see the point in spending hours thinking on them, when we have no power of decision anyway... :rolleyes:
(it's IBF board's job to do the thinking)

Just because you don't have the power of decision-by the way, if you want such power you have to work for it-is not a good reason to be so biased and negative towards the IBF. Making propositions in threads about one thousand and one suggestions is for discussion in this forum. How are they related to the IBF or Punch Gunalan? Just because the IBF didn't hear us or read our threads should not be an excuse to damn them. We are not the 'parent company' of the IBF.
Maybe, we can do something better by actually helping the IBF. For a start, why don't we start drafting the laws of badminton in all the languages of the world instead of in English? Don't you agree that to be really international the laws of badminton must also go international?
There is a world of difference in the two perspectives-one from a small corner on the ground and the other from a 'helicopter' point of view. Now you don't want the two to swap places, do you?

[taneepak]

But it is true that many recent IBF decisions have been really bad, and I think the current team is really not up to it, and are harming our sport a lot!! :(:mad:

I think this is a very serious accusation. Who are in the current IBF team? What have they done lately that is "harming our sport a lot".

[taneepak]

Badminton is (or was?) one of the most popular sport worldwide and is as old as most major sports, and I think IBF has been pretty unefficient over the years to promote and structure the sport, mainly due to internal political problems... :rolleyes:

Let us put this straight-badminton is now more popular than ever before. To say otherwise is all bull and nonsense. Speculating on how it could be done better is not the same as saying there is no improvement. Yes, it could be done better. The same applies to all sports and all human endeavour. This quest for that extra mile is the hallmark of excellence.
Please see and put things in proper perspective.

[Loh]

Really? In Asia, particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia, there are many players who are not registered players. I would say the unregistered players there probably comprise more than 95%. Some of these unregistered players can beat the hell out of grade B or B+ players in countries that play in badminton league matches.

This is one other reason why I think that the current IBF voting system is not really representative enough.

Many players in Asia and other less developed countries such as Africa may not be 'registered players' by IBF definition. Many continue to play badminton for the love of it. Their badminton setups and facilities may not be as well-structured and established as those in the West. In fact, many are still backward by Western standards.

The truth is I'm not even a registered player and I've been involved in this game since young. Just imagine how many more are like me or even in a worse situation than me. Despite being an active IBF member for so many decades, Singapore still doesn't have a professional leaque.

So is 'registered players' a good and fair gauge? If it is not, then the current voting system is flawed! And to eliminate all these unfair measurements, a "one country one vote system" should replace the current one. :rolleyes:

[seven]

Really? In Asia, particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia, there are many players who are not registered players. I would say the unregistered players there probably comprise more than 95%. Some of these unregistered players can beat the hell out of grade B or B+ players in countries that play in badminton league matches.

This is the case in all countries, including France (around 100 000 registered players, approx 2 million players), but the only official figure is the one of registered players.

It is too easy to cheat on the total number of players, and anyway there is no precise way of counting it!

[seven]

[...]by the way, if you want such power you [...]

No I don't. (didn't you read what I said just before?)

[seven]

Let us put this straight-badminton is now more popular than ever before. To say otherwise is all bull and nonsense.

This is going against IBF's claim, that badminton is going downhill and that this is why they need to change the scoring system.
If badminton is more popular than ever before (which it is in France), there is no reason to change the scoring system.


Speculating on how it could be done better is not the same as saying there is no improvement. Yes, it could be done better. The same applies to all sports and all human endeavour. This quest for that extra mile is the hallmark of excellence.
Please see and put things in proper perspective.

The only thing we say (and not I) is that IBF is not up to it.

Spending lots of money and energy on changing a scoring system which works perfectly well, instead of addressing the real problems is a real prooth of blindness and incompetence.

[Loh]

I said the IBF has gone forward and improved the world standing of badminton because of what I have seen over the last three or more years that I have been a member of this Forum.

Perhaps the watershed year was 1992 when badminton first made its appearance at the Olympics. This was more than ten years ago, but what has the IBF done before that year? Someone should research into this and also find out who and from which country the IBF Council was comprised of in 1992. This committee should be congratulated for their hard work in publicizing badminton to the world on TV. For that was perhaps the first time that the world really got to see what an explosive game badminton was and still is. As the Olympics comes about only every 4 years, badminton has appeared only 4 times so far. Isn't this a pity when we know that the IBF was founded in 1934 and its pioneer members were all from the West. It took 58 years for badminton to be recognized by the Olympics!

During the last few years, more of IBF grand prix events were televised and brought to the reaches of many more countries. Now, the IBF has even engaged a professional company to help them in this regard. I'm sure we will see positive results from this tie-up.

But, I consider by far the most significant contribution by the past and present IBF Council is the setting up of the three International Training Centres to benefit young talents from the 'less-badminton-developed' countries, even from countries we hardly heard of not too long ago. What it means is that countries hitherto never counted as far as badminton goes, are now roped into the extended IBF family. The IBF must have enlarged its active membership during the last few years. And even the Olympic Council has recognized and approved two of these training centres for scholarship purposes.

In Punch Gunalan's recent open letter to badminton fans, he has set out IBF Council's goals, action plans and the reasons for certain decisions, including the 21-point scoring system. Council members need to have a 'helicopter view' of things and a forward-looking vision to ensure that badminton keeps on improving and making its mark in international sports. They have other interested members to help them in the nitty-gritties. We should support their plans and give them positive feedback. We should also let them know when they have done a good job.

Whether they wiil succeed in their goals is left to be seen. But reasonable time must be given to implement their plans. The fact that they are willing to discuss and make their plans transparent is already a great departure from the old IBF practice.

As I've said, if someone could do some research, make comparisions, measure what the 'new' IBF has done against the 'old' IBF (say before 1992), then will we be able to truly say they should be condemned or otherwise. But general accusations like 'incompetent', worse still, 'corrupt' (for it can lend oneself to a lawsuit) without evidence, only makes matter worse. It doesn't help the current IBF Council in its work to project itself in the sports world, neither does it help world badminton.

[seven]

But general accusations like 'incompetent', worse still, 'corrupt' (for it can lend oneself to a lawsuit) without evidence, only makes matter worse. It doesn't help the current IBF Council in its work to project itself in the sports world, neither does it help world badminton.

I agree it doesn't help IBF, but its incompetence and willingness for internal political fights rather than general badminton interest are just facts.
(I wasn't trying to help IBF on that one, though recognizing these facts would maybe help actually :rolleyes: )

Saying that IBF is not up to it doesn't please me, doesn't please you, doesn't please any badminton fan, it is just a simple and unfortunate observation.

Obviously and luckily they have done many good and positive moves over the years.
But quite a few decisions (or lack of) are disastrous and the worst of all is the constant messing about with the scoring system.
The way things are done is really not serious, completely opaque and amateur-like I must say, and it ruins badminton's image... :(

[taneepak]

I agree it doesn't help IBF, but its incompetence and willingness for internal political fights rather than general badminton interest are just facts.
(I wasn't trying to help IBF on that one, though recognizing these facts would maybe help actually :rolleyes: )

Saying that IBF is not up to it doesn't please me, doesn't please you, doesn't please any badminton fan, it is just a simple and unfortunate observation.

Obviously and luckily they have done many good and positive moves over the years.
But quite a few decisions (or lack of) are disastrous and the worst of all is the constant messing about with the scoring system.
The way things are done is really not serious, completely opaque and amateur-like I must say, and it ruins badminton's image... :(

Enough said, you have your views and say. The proposal to try out the new scoring system seems to be your number hate obsession, its proponents and supporters can do no right and are to be cursed and condemned at every turn. Such gigantic distortions become huge mirrors for all to see. :D

[seven]

Enough said, you have your views and say. The proposal to try out the new scoring system seems to be your number hate obsession, its proponents and supporters can do no right and are to be cursed and condemned at every turn. Such gigantic distortions become huge mirrors for all to see. :D

I don't get what you mean?
You are perfectly entitled to support the rally scoring system if you really think it is a major need for badminton.

But until now I haven't read many arguments, which is the only thing I can be interested in.
I have seen you post lots of "wait and see it's only a trial." "try it and you'll see it's good" etc but not many arguments.

The only real list of arguments that I read was from Punch Gunalan and I must admit they really weren't convincing!
(more like a "panic list" after seeing how badly his scoring system is perceived by fans).

[Bbn]

I said the IBF has gone forward and improved the world standing of badminton because of what I have seen over the last three or more years that I have been a member of this Forum.

Perhaps the watershed year was 1992 when badminton first made its appearance at the Olympics. This was more than ten years ago, but what has the IBF done before that year? Someone should research into this and also find out who and from which country the IBF Council was comprised of in 1992. This committee should be congratulated for their hard work in publicizing badminton to the world on TV. For that was perhaps the first time that the world really got to see what an explosive game badminton was and still is. As the Olympics comes about only every 4 years, badminton has appeared only 4 times so far. Isn't this a pity when we know that the IBF was founded in 1934 and its pioneer members were all from the West. It took 58 years for badminton to be recognized by the Olympics!

During the last few years, more of IBF grand prix events were televised and brought to the reaches of many more countries. Now, the IBF has even engaged a professional company to help them in this regard. I'm sure we will see positive results from this tie-up.

But, I consider by far the most significant contribution by the past and present IBF Council is the setting up of the three International Training Centres to benefit young talents from the 'less-badminton-developed' countries, even from countries we hardly heard of not too long ago. What it means is that countries hitherto never counted as far as badminton goes, are now roped into the extended IBF family. The IBF must have enlarged its active membership during the last few years. And even the Olympic Council has recognized and approved two of these training centres for scholarship purposes.

In Punch Gunalan's recent open letter to badminton fans, he has set out IBF Council's goals, action plans and the reasons for certain decisions, including the 21-point scoring system. Council members need to have a 'helicopter view' of things and a forward-looking vision to ensure that badminton keeps on improving and making its mark in international sports. They have other interested members to help them in the nitty-gritties. We should support their plans and give them positive feedback. We should also let them know when they have done a good job.

Whether they wiil succeed in their goals is left to be seen. But reasonable time must be given to implement their plans. The fact that they are willing to discuss and make their plans transparent is already a great departure from the old IBF practice.

As I've said, if someone could do some research, make comparisions, measure what the 'new' IBF has done against the 'old' IBF (say before 1992), then will we be able to truly say they should be condemned or otherwise. But general accusations like 'incompetent', worse still, 'corrupt' (for it can lend oneself to a lawsuit) without evidence, only makes matter worse. It doesn't help the current IBF Council in its work to project itself in the sports world, neither does it help world badminton.


Good idea abt the rtesearch. In fact we should go back to 1988

when it was a demo sport in Korea and Yang Yang won the first gold medal.

Or even as far back as 1982 when IBF merged with WBF and China was allowed to participate.It was also abt the time when squash hit peak.

I think the scoring system is mainly to siut TV broadcasters and audiences with limited budgets.

I have heard rumours that for the very first time no one may want to sponsor the thomas Cup finals or World Champs if nothing is done to the scoring system.

[taneepak]

Seven, please remember it requires 2/3 of the total votes to get the new scoring system passed, a near impossible threshhold. But should it be passed by the 2/3 majority, then the IBF Council is not half the idiot you repeatedly broadcast to the world. Also France has the maximum 5 votes. You should talk to them before they cast their votes the wrong side. What if France votes for the new system? Would you give up badminton?

[seven]

What if France votes for the new system? Would you give up badminton?

I'm pretty sure France will vote against it as everyone is against it here!

And yes you're right, there is a big chance that I give up badminton at least as a competitive player, and probably as a spectator/reporter, if the new scoring is adopted.
Though this will be a tough decision! (which I hope I won't need to take)

By the way, I'm still waiting for concrete arguments! ;) (starting by the beginning : "why does the scoring system need changing?")

[taneepak]

I'm pretty sure France will vote against it as everyone is against it here!

And yes you're right, there is a big chance that I give up badminton at least as a competitive player, and probably as a spectator/reporter, if the new scoring is adopted.
Though this will be a tough decision! (which I hope I won't need to take)

By the way, I'm still waiting for concrete arguments! ;) (starting by the beginning : "why does the scoring system need changing?")

Are you sure? Do you know who is France's delegate who is going to cast France's votes? What if he casts a yes vote?
The proposed change to the new scoring system appears to touch a raw nerve in you. Perhaps your game is based entirely on the stamina-sapping old system and you sense that it's replacement will put an end to your style of play. If so, then you are not a master of your environment but a helpless victim.
If the vote doesn't go your way, giving up the sport just because of a scoring system change, is giving up easily. Where is your spirit and determination to take on the world? Have you ever wondered that you might actually do better under the new system?
You can argue and debate to kingdom come, but in the end just don't find yourself being left behind. There is nothing worse than being left behind.

[Bbn]

I'm pretty sure France will vote against it as everyone is against it here!

And yes you're right, there is a big chance that I give up badminton at least as a competitive player, and probably as a spectator/reporter, if the new scoring is adopted.
Though this will be a tough decision! (which I hope I won't need to take)

By the way, I'm still waiting for concrete arguments! ;) (starting by the beginning : "why does the scoring system need changing?")


In fact new system benefits a lot of part time players, one does not have to train like an ox to outlast opponents like in a marathon.More emphasis on skills in a short sprint like previous 7 point system.

also time cut down means more TV exposure and reaching a bigger audience and wider pool of players not just the professionals.

[badrad]

There is nothing worse than being left behind.other than trollers...

this thread is getting a bit long in the tooth.

if the scoring system changes, so be it. if it doesn't, then play on. if anyone feels strongly enough to give up the sport because of these changes, then go take up knitting.

after all, badminton just a sport - not a religion.

[2NDround]

In fact new system benefits a lot of part time players, one does not have to train like an ox to outlast opponents like in a marathon.More emphasis on skills in a short sprint like previous 7 point system.

also time cut down means more TV exposure and reaching a bigger audience and wider pool of players not just the professionals.


Do you know why the marathon is so popular? Easy, it is very tough and hence very challenging to most people. Make it easy, and there will be little interest.

[seven]

Are you sure? Do you know who is France's delegate who is going to cast France's votes?

Yes, I do know the people at the head of the federation.
Actually, french federation has already refused to impose the current trial in national competitions as all players are against it.
So all our tournaments still use 3x15 until IBF takes a definate decision.


What if he casts a yes vote?

He will be kicked out!!! :p:D


The proposed change to the new scoring system appears to touch a raw nerve in you. Perhaps your game is based entirely on the stamina-sapping old system and you sense that it's replacement will put an end to your style of play. If so, then you are not a master of your environment but a helpless victim.
If the vote doesn't go your way, giving up the sport just because of a scoring system change, is giving up easily. Where is your spirit and determination to take on the world? Have you ever wondered that you might actually do better under the new system?

I don't really mind whether I would do better or not.
It takes the spirit out of the sport for two things I love in it : come-backs and mental tension, hard-fought endless games.
Both as a spectator and a player, it makes it uninteresting.

But OK I admit I have only been playing the game for 17 years so not a big deal... :rolleyes:


You can argue and debate to kingdom come, but in the end just don't find yourself being left behind. There is nothing worse than being left behind.

It might be my poor english but I didn't understand a word here :confused: :o Could you rephrase?

[wedgewenis]

yea thanks Seven for pointing out that, while we might disagree with 21x3 and for personal reasons.... its not a just some cheap bias towards what the change will do to our game; its bigger than that.


if anyone feels strongly enough to give up the sport because of these changes, then go take up knitting.


Your joking right?

The problem isn't making pro players play rallypoint ... the problem is an organization trying to tell us how to play the game when we already know how it should be played.

I doubt anyone is going to stop playing, but certainly many people like me are going to refuse to play at our local clubs under this system.... I know that the majorty of players aren't going to use rallypoint. Most having even yet heard about it, so obviously we don't need the IBF to tell us how to play.


and about Pro badminton for a second - You can argue the merits of 21x3 over and over and over again. The fact is there are many Pro and no-Pro players against 21x3 for alot of reasons. but NOBODY IS AGAINST 15x3 except mabye a few in the IBF, put that on the scale ........

what you get is a decision to go with a scoring system that unifies badminton virtually everywhere in the world and at every playing ability, against one that is already causing division everywhere and at every level of play......

[demolidor]

By the way, I'm still waiting for concrete arguments! ;) (starting by the beginning : "why does the scoring system need changing?")

If you have a better way to make match duration more predictable feel free to share it. TV programming is everything nowadays, tv makes and brakes, it doesn't work the other way around. Commercial brakes, etc. need to be somewhat predictable to attract major brands. Target audience n stuff u know :rolleyes: If advertisers have bought commercial space for the next program specified to a specific audience and it turns out it will be hours later it won't be as attractive to do so next time.

France might be the exception in europe with growing numbers of registered players btw. Would be interesting to find out, here it's a definite decrease over the last couple of years.

This discusion is carbon copy of volleyball years ago and now you don't hear anything about that anymore, even about the tighter outfits for women.

[badrad]

I really couldn't give a rat's a** about the scoring system.

IMO the scoring system makes absolutely no difference in your strokes, technique or skills. It will change how you concentrate on each rally, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Read the thread, there are some players that would contemplate giving up badminton (competitive) if the new system were to be fully implemented. All I am adding is that if these players do feel so strongly about it to really quit, then do it!

[demolidor]

IMO the scoring system makes absolutely no difference in your strokes, technique or skills. It will change how you concentrate on each rally, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Totally agree! Was thinking the same thing :cool:

[jkusmanto]

Actually I didn't know exactly what the new scoring system look like, and also didn't know how to play it. Untill I watched the Netherlands national championship ± 1 week ago on Netherland TV.

I watched the MS and WD matches. For the MS, I have no problem to understand it, but for double, I needed time to catch the system.

In my opinion, the weaker players can take advantage from the better players, because the better also make mistake, from this mistake, the weaker get points. With the other word, you get punish from your mistake.
The match tension will be higher. Because the score continue running.

I don't know whether this system can make badminton more interesting/populer or not. But I thing I don't agree is the reasons of Mr. Gunalan.
Mr. Gunalan said that to make badminton more interesting, IBF need to change the scoring system, to make the match shorter, bla.. bla... bla....
I wonder why tennis get so many attention, even a match can last 4 hour ?

I am sure badminton will be more interesting/populer if IBF can do its job as proffesional as ATP/WTA.

[Wizbit]

Interesting to note that some of our older members are for the new system, whilst younger ones are against..


I really couldn't give a rat's a** about the scoring system.

IMO the scoring system makes absolutely no difference in your strokes, technique or skills. It will change how you concentrate on each rally, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Read the thread, there are some players that would contemplate giving up badminton (competitive) if the new system were to be fully implemented. All I am adding is that if these players do feel so strongly about it to really quit, then do it!

[demolidor]

I wonder why tennis get so many attention, even a match can last 4 hour ?

I am sure badminton will be more interesting/populer if IBF can do its job as proffesional as ATP/WTA.

I wonder if tennis would be as popular if you take away games in scoring and just have sets till 30 point or something, but anyhow good article on women's tennis here: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/1999/06/04/women_in_tennis/

Even better article: http://cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/09/sm.03.html

[badrad]

Interesting to note that some of our older members are for the new system, whilst younger ones are against..I've never actually been either for it or against. I was originally opposed to it for the reasons used for it's implementation, not the scoring method itself. But after thinking it over, really as far as I'm concerned, it matters quite little since each rally I will still try to play to win. I think most of us are in the same boat, in that we will try to play each rally to win the rally.
It does mean to me that with rally scoring is that I'd likely get more pi**ed with myself for making unforced errors, since these will wind up costing me points. It will also make you less likely to play foolish strokes, and get you to get on with the task of finishing off the game.

**** hey! who you calling OLD? **** ;)

[demolidor]

All in all it doesn't really matter. No way there is gonna be live coverage of any event here on a consistent basis. Best bet is Eurosport for the whole of europe, so what would make eurosport broadcast more badminton? Don't think it's the amount of players in a country, judo is probably even bigger in france and I only see the world championships on eurosport. IBF needs to "create" more heroes/ the game needs more heroes/individuals/characters. Hardly ever see players interact with/ react to the crowd. Probably a rule against that as well. Too strict maybe? Want to drink: need permission, use towel: need permission like little children. The sport needs to grow up and all the internal problems certainly won't help that.
Guess attitude change is even more needed than scoring change ;) (on all levels including local, you won't believe how childish even the chairmen of top league clubs can be). Scoring change is definitely a short term answer but one that can be changed alot quicker than attitude so at least it's a start to think outside of the box...

[Shouldn't this thread be merged with the other one, somehow?]

[demolidor]

:D five and a half years ago:

The Olympics is an event where such capabilities are proven as highly skilled athletes compete on the world’s stage. A sports popularity usually benefits from this exposure, especially if a star emerges into the nations spotlight, gaining recognition and fame for the sport as well as the individual. Although there are no prominent figures for badminton at this moment, the past has shown that athletes will present themselves when an “explosion“ of the sport occurs. Recall that less than two decades ago skateboarding and snowboarding were virtually unheard of in this country. Now these sports are more popular than ever, with athletes such as Tony Hawk having a fan base that far exceeds that of the sports beginnings. This can be compared to other countries such as Indonesia and China, where badminton players have remarkable roles in the sporting world. When badminton gains more popularity, its’ stars will as well.

http://www.worldbadminton.com/commentary/badrap.htm

[Bbn]

appears target for widening TV coverage is not EU

but rather new growth areas eg. Philipines, vietnam.

maybe Eskimos and Mongolians etc.Getting them on board so to speak.

[other]

This discusion is carbon copy of volleyball years ago and now you don't hear anything about that anymore, even about the tighter outfits for women.

yes but nor do you hear anything about volleyball in general:p
unless its the beach variety..

maybe PG could explore that route:rolleyes:

well i'm not too bothered about the change, i'm still playing 15x3, and the professionals...well its their job....

[FEND.]

I don't know whether this system can make badminton more interesting/populer or not. But I thing I don't agree is the reasons of Mr. Gunalan.
Mr. Gunalan said that to make badminton more interesting, IBF need to change the scoring system, to make the match shorter, bla.. bla... bla....
I wonder why tennis get so many attention, even a match can last 4 hour ?

I am sure badminton will be more interesting/populer if IBF can do its job as proffesional as ATP/WTA.

'cause of the se-x appeal in tennis. Cut short all the nonsense. There are also more sponsors in tennis like HUGE MONEY SPONSORS. From the looks of it, one HUGE MONEY SPONSOR in tennis contributes more in one tournament then half the world grandprixs combined for badminton....

Whatever happens happens. I can't be bothered arguing this point anymore. Close the thread or something, seeing the same thing over and over again is depressing. Hence one of the reasons my presence at the forums has been greatly reduced. I myself have learned over the past year to reduce saying statements which might cause controversy or in this case cause a flame war in the thread. Everyone should learn to deal with it. There are more serious problems in the world than badminton scoring.

IBF is trying to do something, whether it's correct or not is a different thing. At least it's putting some effort to promote your favourite sport and I do not think it is a crime. They may be doing the wrong things but the effort still counts.

P.S I have no idea what I just wrote. *am currently drunk*

;)

[Bbn]

Is it possible that two systems can co -exist

except for Thomas cup and Worlds with worldwide telecasts.

associations organise tours their own way, up to players to

choose tours, then AE can continue in its traditional form.

Probably more competition to raise prestige.

Tennis eg. can tolerate clay surfaces, grass etc.