Last year, before world championship, IBF announced the top players in the world for the title. Lee HI was one of the few; while Chen Hong, Chen Jin, Bao Chun Lai, and KJ were not, even though Lee's ranking not as high as them. I questioned, and many people here disagreed me and supported IBF.

Now again, in the front page top news of IBF official web site,
http://internationalbadminton.org/newscontent.asp?pageid={13278516-F210-4A03-A5ED-16BE631D39A6}

it says:

The only top player missing this year is Lee Hyun Il , who recently stunned the world by announcing his retirement, ... Chen Hong, who will also be missing the great event.

Now Lee HI has announcing his retirement, but Chen Hong unclear. Even though, Lee is still the top player while Chen Hong's not. why IBF honors Lee HI so much, but belittles Chen Hong always. Chen Hong has won all England before and Lee HI never. Chen Hong won two 6 star titles last year, one in Asia, the other in Europe, but Lee HI won nothing. Still, IBF writes much more on Lee HI than Chen Hong for this coming all England open.

By the way, the current ranking for Lee HI is 11th, but Chen Hong is the 4th. Chen Hong has 58871 points while Lee HI has only 36413 points only 60% of Chen Hong's points.

Lee HI and Chen Hong's impacts on the all england open:

Lee HI, never won all england, never won last year, ranked 11th with 36413
Chen H, won all england b4, won two 6 stars last year, ranked 4th with 58871

But in the eye of IBF, missing LHI is much more important than missing CH.

I have a feeling that IBF hates Chinese players.

Actually, Chen Hong is the best overall legend in the last 20 years of all England open. Chen Hong has won England open twice, and also grabbed two runner-ups. Only Lin Dan came close with 2 titles and 1 runner up.

Chen Hong contributed the most in the last 20 years to the all England, and still the best player in the world. Actually before his withdraw at Malaysia open, he's won 16 matches continuously without losing any.

It is just too unfair that IBF treats such a legend. IBF always behaves like a biased fan instead of a professional organization.

IBF also says:

Taufik has made known his full focus to win this All England Championship – the only title which has eluded him until now.

This is also not true. There are lots of titles with higher prize than all england which Taufik has never won.

IBF also says:

Taufik has made known his full focus to win this All England Championship – the only title which has eluded him until now.

This is also not true. There are lots of titles with higher prize than all england which Taufik has never won.

Can you please name a few ?

Can you please name a few ?

There are so many :D :D

actually, Taufik has never won any top prize tournaments :D :D :D

Korea open almost always awards the most money, Taufik has never won.

China/China master/World Cup/Hong Kong open should come in 2nd, Taufik has never won any of them.

In Europe, Denmark open is the best, Taufik has never won. Actually, Taufik has never won any open tournament in Europe.

Before 2004, Taufik was known as a talented player but won nothing. In fact He did won at home, but only at home.

Since Olympic 2004, he began to win some small scaled games, such as Olympic game, WC and Asian games. Usually in open tournaments, the final winner needs 6 win to claim the title. While in smaller scaled games, only 4 wins can give you a gold. That's something Taufik becomes good at since 2004.

Now all the open tournaments becomes smaller scaled by IBF's new rules. So I think Taufik should be able to win some open tournaments this year.

hmm... if that is the case why people keep saying all england is the only title that he hasn't win ? Makes him sound so legendary.

There is a perception in the badminton community that the Olympics, the World Championships and All England are the major titles to win to be great. No male singles player has ever won all three titles in a professional career. No player apart from Taufik has won the Olympic and World Championships. So if Taufik wins All England he will be considered by some as the greatest. Off course this perception is false in my opinion because to be truly great or the greatest one would have to be overwhelmingly dominant in one's professional career such as Rudy Hartono who won 8 All England titles (7 of them consecutively) and 1 World Championships. The Olympics didn't have badminton as a sport at his time and the World Championships only started in 1977 towards the end of Rudy's career. Taufik has a long way to go yet although he has won Indonesian Open for 6 times equal with Ardy Wiranata.

Ask anyone (including players) they will say Olympics, WC and All-England are the most important, everything else is 2nd rate.

I can understand naming Korea because it offers the highest prize money, but what makes you think all China tournaments more important than All-England, I really dun know,

Especially the China world cup, which is an invitational tournament should be even less important than 3* tournament, and Denmark open isn't very important because not all top players participate (maybe due to expenses..)

On the otherhand everyone goes (atleast tries to) to All-England.

What it should read is "The only prestigious title which has eluded him until now". Saying the only title is a bit stupid :p. I think it was one of the, or the first proper badminton tournament or something wasn't it? That's why it has such a reputation. And that is why most players would really like to win the All England. Or something like that... :).

I've only seen a few of the older videos (1970s/80s) but I don't think the players really begin to compare to the players of today. They're great and it's certainly something to dominate a sport even then. In that respect those old players are legendary. But as the sport has grown it has also become a lot more competitive. I don't think it's quite as achievable these days for a player to dominate as much as they did 20-30 years ago. So I don't think it is fair to compare a players dominance to the older players as a basis of whether or not they are legendary in their time.

Anyway maybe the writer was referring to the top players of each country or something along those lines. I agree, Chen Hong is every bit as much of a top player as Lee Hyun Il. I wouldn't really take anything on the IBF website too seriously myself. Both of the examples you've given just seem to be a simple mistake or a misenterpretation on our side (like what I suggested above). Or else they just have no idea what they are talking about :)!

Before 2004, Taufik was known as a talented player but won nothing. In fact He did won at home, but only at home.

Since Olympic 2004, he began to win some small scaled games, such as Olympic game, WC and Asian games. Usually in open tournaments, the final winner needs 6 win to claim the title. While in smaller scaled games, only 4 wins can give you a gold. That's something Taufik becomes good at since 2004.

Now all the open tournaments becomes smaller scaled by IBF's new rules. So I think Taufik should be able to win some open tournaments this year.

how can you call olympic games and wc small scaled, those are the most important tournaments in badminton!

how can you call olympic games and wc small scaled, those are the most important tournaments in badminton!

He's trying to say that there are smaller field in the draw. With Super Series now, it is not true anymore though !

And not forgetting he won the Asian Games gold twice !

Hm I couldn't agree more with 2cents.

It's totally unfair to dismiss Chen Hong, who is in my opinion one of the most underrated players on the pro circuit anyway and Taufik on the contrary probably the most overrated. But as this thread is mostly about Chen Hong and Lee HI, I don't want to draw Taufik into this.

Despite Lee HI being a great player and everything, I don't think he draws even close to Chen Hong's past success, or even current, just as 2cents well pointed out. I mean, just look at the world ranking, with that much difference, doesn't that scream you which player is more succesful. Well not much we can do anyway, but I really agree on IBF being obviously unreasonable concerning this matter.

It's really a pity that Chen Hong, such a talented and succesful player, retires.
Very good arguments there anyway, plus you had them based on facts. reps :) .

It's totally unfair to dismiss Chen Hong, who is in my opinion one of the most underrated players on the pro circuit

So very true. The amount of "upsets" Chen Hong has caused you'd think he'd be given a little more credit.

Ethan's right. Smaller scaled means smaller entries. I knew and also said Taufik won Asian games. He needed only 4 matches (think about it one more time, just 4 matches ) to win the Asian games, in fact, which means the best of only 16 players.

Larger scaled tournaments, like all England, used to be more than 80 entries, and at least 6 matches to claim the title. With the introduction of super series, all tournaments become smaller scaled than before, but still larger than Asian games and Olympics.

Thanks Chire. You made truth much more clear than I presented.

I really think that my thoughts are so common and natural, although so many people here don't agree. If in any other sports, other than badminton, the more prize money, the more important of the tournament; the more entries, the better of the tournament; the more high ranked players, the higher level of the tournament. How come here in badminton, everything's upside down? Asian game? what a joke!!! without any European players, without world number 2 Chen Hong, without world number 4 Chen Jin, without world number 7 Chen Yu, without Sony, without Roslin, even they are all Asians, but has players playing with Hijab in the top 16! How can you rate such a joke game as the best tournament? Olympic is the same joke but in a little bit larger scale.

Countries and players might say Olympic is more important, it is reasonable. Because it is the place to earn national pride. Players also got pressures from their countries. But for us, as purely badminton fans, not enthusiastic patriots, we should honor the real quality of the tournaments.

I rated China Open/World Cup/China master behind Korea open, because usually they offer the 2nd best prize around $250k to $300k. The Denmark open should be the top one in Europe also because of its best in Europe prize money around $200k.

Even though all England didnot award much, it should be higher than its money presents. Because its prestige history and large, probably the largest number of entries. It used to be the most popular tournaments with largest entry numbers. But not any more because of introduction of the new super series. So if someone rates all England used to be the best tournament, I totally agree.

Personal opinion: I think Lin Dan is the best badminton player since I watched badminton. I'm not sure about Rudy Hartono. He must be great, but I'm just not familiar with. Some people say that Rudy benefited a lot from absence of China players, especialy Tang XH and Hou JC.

Lin Dan, Chen Hong and Peter Gade are the best 3 players in consistency. Chen Hong has been the number 1 continuously more than 1 whole year. Who else can do that? Even Lin Dan and Peter Gade cannot do that. Ranked as number 1 in IBF is nothing because their system is very inaccurate. But Chen Hong can beat the odds being number 1 more than a year, that's so difficult to beat both the other players and also the so randomly erroneous ranking system.

Taufik is also a great player, but if he were in China, he would not have chance to play that long, he could end up with nothing for his career. Even he grabbed gold in Olympics, he could also forced to retire like Ji Xingpeng because of inconsistency. So Taufik should thank Indonesia for letting him play so long. So along with Ji Xingpeng, Xia Xuanze, Sun Jun and Hendrawan, Taufik is in the same category who can win, but cannot win continuously.

Personal opinion: I think Lin Dan is the best badminton player since I watched badminton. I'm not sure about Rudy Hartono. He must be great, but I'm just not familiar with. Some people say that Rudy benefited a lot from absence of China players, especialy Tang XH and Hou JC.
..2cents, just my small nudge..i understand it's just your opinion(since you're not familiar with), but be a bit "cautious" when mentioning & comparing current players' names w/the great 'Rudy Hartono'..if you'd read a bit of sabathiel's past posts, i would say he's a strong proponent of him & likes to "revolve" around that name, most if not all of the time, in his posts...;):)

Thank ctjcad (where did this name come from? I'm especially cautious when I'm typing, afraid of typos :) ) :), anyway, thanks for your nudge. I knew Rudy was great, at least he won so many all England titles. There is no doubt about his greatness. Let's discuss more about the current players. ;)

I'm quite surprised by the way the article has written abt Chen Hong. Lee Hyun Il is a good player but never consistent enough unlike Chen Hong.


btw, the 2003 Sudirman Cup Men Singles Event between Chen Hong n Lee Hyun-Il was recently uploaded. :D In that match, Lee Hyun Il was playing at his peak IMO, but Chen Hong was too as he was the world no.1 at that time.
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41058

I think you guys are being a bit too sensitive here. The person who wrote the article (perhaps Raphael Sachetat) is not perfect, and may have written it in a hurry. Although it was wrong to say that Chen Hong is not a top player, but I see far more serious errors done by journalists.

I'm quite surprised by the way the article has written abt Chen Hong. Lee Hyun Il is a good player but never consistent enough unlike Chen Hong.


btw, the 2003 Sudirman Cup Men Singles Event between Chen Hong n Lee Hyun-Il was recently uploaded. :D In that match, Lee Hyun Il was playing at his peak IMO, but Chen Hong was too as he was the world no.1 at that time.
http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41058

Maybe that's the only game IBF watched between Lee HI and Chen Hong. At that time, Lee HI was very good, he even claimed world number 1 position for 1 week ever. That's the best time for Lee HI in his career. But before Lee HI took the number 1 position from Chen Hong, Chen has been there for more than 1 year. That's the difference. There is no surprise that Lee HI beat Chen Hong in Sudirman, since Lee HI was the best that moment. But Chen Hong has been the best for years already, he got his own Sudirman even 4 year earlier than Lee HI.

Just like biased fan, IBF only sees one match it needs and ignores the other 100 matches on purpose.

I've only seen a few of the older videos (1970s/80s) but I don't think the players really begin to compare to the players of today. They're great and it's certainly something to dominate a sport even then. In that respect those old players are legendary. But as the sport has grown it has also become a lot more competitive. I don't think it's quite as achievable these days for a player to dominate as much as they did 20-30 years ago. So I don't think it is fair to compare a players dominance to the older players as a basis of whether or not they are legendary in their time.



We must be cautious when we compare the players of old with current players in terms of technique and style. More recent players has benefited from learning from past players in terms of technique, playing style, training program, etc and thus would be superior on court. Don't forget that in termsof resources and equipment the players of more recent years also have benefited more than the players from the past and hence this would affect the way they play. However on the issue of being legendary this must not be a term that we label on a player too easily. Sure badminton is more competitive these days but do the older players knew they were competing in sport that wasn't so competitive compared to what will happen in the future?

Dominant players like Rudy Hartono is like Einstein or Thomas Edison they don't come very often and are born more than they are trained and came at the right time to leave their mark on badminton history just like the Beatles in pop music. Would Einstein's or Edison's knowledge compare to today's scientist? No! This is because the current scientists have benefited substantially from the greats of the past. Why haven't there been a scientist that dominated science today? This is because the major groundbreaking works have already been done in the past and there are far more scientists today than there were in the past so the current environment is more competitive and the achievements, discoveries and inventions today are shared amongst a large number of scientists.

Would someone like George Washington come often in history? How would Washington handle the current global political climate? The thing is that great people are born at the right time and excell as well totally dominate their area of expertise during their time with very little support. One must measure greatness not lightly and cautiously. Are there any current players who have been called "the maestro" or seen as a phenomenon in badminton like the great Rudy Hartono during his time? No! This has nothing to do with how less competitive badminton was back then but rather maestros don't come very often and are born at the right time to leave their mark in history. In terms of groundbreaking Rudy Hartono, although he wasn't credited with promoting speed and power badminton (this was credited to Liem Swie King) he opened the door to speed and power badminton with his style of play and training program. Rudy took badminton to another level than his peers or predecessors did. It is fair to say that he revolutionise (Liem Swie King simply completed the process) the game something noone has done after him. He won his first All England title in his teens and I think he still is the youngest winner although Taufik is the youngest finalist at 17.

On the issue of being dominant in our time Taufik has won the Indonesian Open 6 times. This indicates dominance although this achievement is marred by the fact that Indonesian Open is not as prestigious as All England and Taufik is playing in his own country. Ardy Wiranata also won Indonesian Open 6 times but he has retired. Taufik at a relatively young age could win maybe another 3-4 Indonesian Open and prove his dominance at home.

:) ...hehe, oops, forgot to tell phaarix;) ...anyways, if you or anyone else want to proceed & continue discussing this with sabathiel, just take it easy and prepare to discuss and see some lengthy replies/posts, which has a very good chance in going off-topic..:p;)

well said, sabathiel.

I did not watch much old videos. You said there was few competitions (few competitors) in Rudy's time. Did you mean that all the China players blocked at home due to international sanction? Tang XH and Hou JC were good at speed and power, right? Some one said they were at least at the same level as Rudy, is that right?

A few comments:

+All the pros mentioned here are awesome. Sometimes comparing them is like splitting hairs.

+Go Chen Hong! He's my favorite to watch, so exciting, never boring.

+Watch what you guys say to Raphy (Raphael Sachetat), he's a very good player. I bet Raphy could beat anyone here in a game of singles. :p

;) :D :D :D

I know I am a bit off-topic but I think a few great players by-passed by IBF - just look at the Player of the Year Award & draw your own conclusion. As for this article, if the writer is Raphael S., I must say if you have followed his previous articles, you will come to a conclusion who he favors. A few friends of mine have already highlighted that to me.

It's hard to remain impartial esp. when you are a die-hard fan but when you are with the media, you just have to. That's why I like to hear commentaries by Gillian Clark. She works towards being fair in her judgement and gives credit generously when the player deserves it.

We must be cautious when we compare the players of old with current players in terms of...
Sorry :), like I said I don't know very much at all about the past players. So a lot of what I was getting at was guesswork. I'm definitely not saying it's fact! I've also never seen Rudy Hartono play so I guess I'll be looking forward to that when I get the chance.

I'm just saying it's very hard to compare current players "legendary" status to the older players. Like I said it is amazing to have accomplished 8 All England titles. That is very very much worth legendary status. Disregarding the difference between these older players and the current players in terms of skill (players will always get better with each generation, world records in many sports are getting broken constantly for example). I just don't believe (as I said) that it is quite as achievable these days to be that dominant. As much as we improve over time there is always going to be a limit to how good people can get. And as we draw closer to that it allows less room for such dominance.

Anyway I'm definitely not discrediting the older players in terms of skill and technique etc. It would have been just as hard back then, as it is now, to become a top player :).

You never know - there's a TON of interest in tennis, and look what Federer is doing to that sport.

Glacyus you took the words out of my mouth. Look at what Federer is doing to tennis and you couldn't say that in an era where tennis is much more powerful and faster as well as more competitive (more players playing from relatively new countries, eg Russia, Chile, France, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Germany etc) one cannot dominate the sport. Federer is truly dominant in tennis and is breaking records in the sport. Compare tennis today with the game in Rod Laver's day and you would see the game has come a long way since. Not only is Federer a tennis master but he came from a relatively obscure tennis country, Switzerland. I am sure if another badminton maestro is born we could witness another Rudy Hartono in badminton.

well said, sabathiel.

I did not watch much old videos. You said there was few competitions (few competitors) in Rudy's time. Did you mean that all the China players blocked at home due to international sanction? Tang XH and Hou JC were good at speed and power, right? Some one said they were at least at the same level as Rudy, is that right?

You should watch the old videos but I doubt you would be able to find videos of Rudy Hartono in his peak. I know that you can find a Rudy Hartono vs Luan Jin match (Thomas Cup 1982 Final) online from badmintonDVD.com but Rudy lost that match in 3 sets because he was passed his prime at 33. Rudy was pressured at the time to come out from retirement by PBSI to play 3rd singles. If you can find the Final of the 1980 World Championship between Rudy Hartono vs Liem Swie King that would be great because Rudy won the title by humbling the much younger Swie King 15-9;15-9 when he came out of retirement at 31.

During Rudy's time there were far less tournaments and All England in the absence of the Olympics (badminton started in 1992) and the World Championships (started in 1977) was the de facto World title.

The older forum participants like Taneepak would remember how Rudy truly graced the badminton court like a true maestro with his skills. Hou JC and Tang XH was already old (although still great) when Rudy emerged in his prime. No doubt in their prime Tang XH and Hou JC were at least at the same level of Rudy. These players opened the door for speed and power badminton when Liem Swie King came and popularised badminton with his famous King jump smash.

Not only Rudy was great at badminton but he has great sportsmanship and his behaviour on and off court is impeccable unlike the spoilt brat Taufik. Rudy always gives at least 1 point to his lesser skilled opponent as a matter of courtesy because he knew how bad one would feel to get nothing in a match.

Glacyus you took the words out of my mouth. Look at what Federer is doing to tennis and you couldn't say that in an era where tennis is much more powerful and faster as well as more competitive (more players playing from relatively new countries, eg Russia, Chile, France, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Germany etc) one cannot dominate the sport. Federer is truly dominant in tennis and is breaking records in the sport. Compare tennis today with the game in Rod Laver's day and you would see the game has come a long way since. Not only is Federer a tennis master but he came from a relatively obscure tennis country, Switzerland. I am sure if another badminton maestro is born we could witness another Rudy Hartono in badminton.
Well it remains to be seen I guess. Tennis isn't the same sport as badminton though (maybe Tennis still has a long way to go :)). I'll believe it when I see it. Perhaps if badminton becomes more globally popular we will see more variety in styles of play? And then perhaps we may see some true dominance again.

You should watch the old videos but I doubt you would be able to find videos of Rudy Hartono in his peak. I know that you can find a Rudy Hartono vs Luan Jin match (Thomas Cup 1982 Final) online from badmintonDVD.com but Rudy lost that match in 3 sets because he was passed his prime at 33. Rudy was pressured at the time to come out from retirement by PBSI to play 3rd singles. If you can find the Final of the 1980 World Championship between Rudy Hartono vs Liem Swie King that would be great because Rudy won the title by humbling the much younger Swie King 15-9;15-9 when he came out of retirement at 31.

During Rudy's time there were far less tournaments and All England in the absence of the Olympics (badminton started in 1992) and the World Championships (started in 1977) was the de facto World title.

The older forum participants like Taneepak would remember how Rudy truly graced the badminton court like a true maestro with his skills. Hou JC and Tang XH was already old (although still great) when Rudy emerged in his prime. No doubt in their prime Tang XH and Hou JC were at least at the same level of Rudy. These players opened the door for speed and power badminton when Liem Swie King came and popularised badminton with his famous King jump smash.

Not only Rudy was great at badminton but he has great sportsmanship and his behaviour on and off court is impeccable unlike the spoilt brat Taufik. Rudy always gives at least 1 point to his lesser skilled opponent as a matter of courtesy because he knew how bad one would feel to get nothing in a match.

Rudy is an excellent player, without doubt! But Taufik plays better than Rudy:D

..guys, i know it's getting fun talking abt the 2 "INAn legends", but let's get back to the topic at hand...;) :cool:

Rudy is an excellent player, without doubt! But Taufik plays better than Rudy:D

:eek: The leading top scientists today would be more knowledgeable than Albert Einstein but who left a greater scientific legacy and who left a greater mark in history? Where would Taufik be in terms of playing skills if he had no benefit from learning from players of the past including Rudy Hartono? By the way these are rhetorical questions as the answers are obvious.

:eek: The leading top scientists today would be more knowledgeable than Albert Einstein but who left a greater scientific legacy and who left a greater mark in history? Where would Taufik be in terms of playing skills if he had no benefit from learning from players of the past including Rudy Hartono? By the way these are rhetorical questions as the answers are obvious.

The earlier is NOT always the better.

The earlier is NOT always the better.

No one ever said that.

Ditto!

The one with a greater impact in history is greater.

:eek: The leading top scientists today would be more knowledgeable than Albert Einstein but who left a greater scientific legacy and who left a greater mark in history? Where would Taufik be in terms of playing skills if he had no benefit from learning from players of the past including Rudy Hartono? By the way these are rhetorical questions as the answers are obvious.
Yeah that was part of what I was trying to get at. Each generation learns from the last and gradually improves. But lets say Einstein was born again now? Do you think he would make such a mark in the current age? And if some of todays top scientists had been born in his age would they have had the same impact? It's certainly possible.

Rudy Hartono must have been great. But I'm still not convinced that it is fair to compare the current generation to that of 20-30 years or so ago. So much has changed since then and I just don't believe it's right to make a such a comparison.

I don't know about you but I am religious and believes that those who left a mark in history such as Einstein were chosen by God to be the greats of history. One of the fortunes of people like Einstein is that they were born at the right time with the right conditions to leave a great impact and mark on history. In other words it is their destiny to be historically significant. I don't think anyone can be historically significant even if the top scientists today were born in Einstein's day. It might be possible but not probable.

I don't know about you but I am religious and believes that those who left a mark in history such as Einstein were chosen by God to be the greats of history. One of the fortunes of people like Einstein is that they were born at the right time with the right conditions to leave a great impact and mark on history. In other words it is their destiny to be historically significant. I don't think anyone can be historically significant even if the top scientists today were born in Einstein's day. It might be possible but not probable.

Ah well I guess it's not that important. I mean everyone is going to have their own opinions on who is/was a legend :) (and for the record of course I believe Einstein was a big part of history, perhaps he wasn't the best example!).

I think the current great players are Lin Dan, Peter Gade, n Taufik Hidayat .... Lee Chong Wei, Chen Hong, Lee Hyun Ill are "only" good players .... just my opinion

From my observation some of BC members' views are based on facts & therefore impartial. They deserve a good reading. However, there will always be die-hard fans who choose to follow their hearts rather than their heads which lead them to making irrational statements.

From my observation some of BC members' views are based on facts & therefore impartial. They deserve a good reading. However, there will always be die-hard fans who choose to follow their hearts rather than their heads which lead them to making irrational statements.

I've also found that a lot of the "facts" people post here are simply opinions hidden beneath big words...

The difference is that some opinions are based on facts, rational, objective and logical while some other opinions are based on emotion, irrational, subjective and illogical.

The difference is that some opinions are based on facts, rational, objective and logical while some other opinions are based on emotion, irrational, subjective and illogical.

It's True...
Some people give opinion base on their deep analize, good knowledge both historical and current which provide very interesting statement to read and thought.
But some people give a simple statement , not accurate, emotional, subjective and that's very unconvertible to read, silly, destructive the whole analyze:(

The difference is that some opinions are based on facts, rational, objective and logical while some other opinions are based on emotion, irrational, subjective and illogical.

That's what I meant. Facts & results don't lie. But some people are just so blinded & hard-headed that they refuse to accept them. True - BC is a forum for fans to express views but they must be done with wisdom & facts. History has so often proven that words spoken & actions taken impulsively without careful thought cum wisdom lead to destruction. And if people don't show remorse for their wrongful actions, what's there to hope further.

The difference is that some opinions are based on facts, rational, objective and logical while some other opinions are based on emotion, irrational, subjective and illogical.

Some certainly are. Your posts for example are obviously well thought out, and don't just revolve around the use of "big" words (it's just something I've noticed on this forum and others - often I'll read a post which is in essence a load of rubbish and yet because of their "impressive" vocabulary they will get a lot more respect than they really deserve).

The difference is that some opinions are based on facts, rational, objective and logical while some other opinions are based on emotion, irrational, subjective and illogical.

Opinions are always subjective. People view things differently. Of course, we use our emotion when making opinions.

Some certainly are. Your posts for example are obviously well thought out, and don't just revolve around the use of "big" words (it's just something I've noticed on this forum and others - often I'll read a post which is in essence a load of rubbish and yet because of their "impressive" vocabulary they will get a lot more respect than they really deserve).

<clap,clap,clap> well done mate. Bulleyes :D

I know I am a bit off-topic but I think a few great players by-passed by IBF - just look at the Player of the Year Award & draw your own conclusion. As for this article, if the writer is Raphael S., I must say if you have followed his previous articles, you will come to a conclusion who he favors. A few friends of mine have already highlighted that to me.

It's hard to remain impartial esp. when you are a die-hard fan but when you are with the media, you just have to. That's why I like to hear commentaries by Gillian Clark. She works towards being fair in her judgement and gives credit generously when the player deserves it.

Let me break it down for you,mate. Raphael is an anti-china and a Pro- Indonesia. That is an easy one eh:D

Opinions are always subjective. People view things differently. Of course, we use our emotion when making opinions.

If you base your opinion on reason, facts and the evidence you will be objective. You are subjective if you base your opinions on feelings and emotions. You use emotions when you offer your opinions others are impartial and don't rely on personal feelings or emotions. I hate to see you working in a Court environment where people have to be objective and emotionless. As it is said, the facts speak for themselves. That is why people agree on many things based on objectivity and the facts. There are more that we agree on than what we disagree on. That is the proof that objectivity exists. If everybody is subjective on everything the result would be chaos and anarchy.

A few googled definitions for "opinion":

- A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?".

- A view, judgment, or appraisal formed in one person's mind about a particular matter.

- Many political policies and personal beliefs are merely Opinion - for want of a better term. Often people can't pinpoint why they hold a certain belief or opinion - it is merely there in their brain so they vehemently support it.

- A belief or judgement that is strongly held, but without actual proof of its truth.

- Opinion, unjustified in a logical sense, not yet tied down by way of reason (logos). In this regard, opinion may be true, but not presented in terms which make its claims stand as objective fact. For this reason, opinion is thought to be merely subjective, or private in its efficacy.


Looks like it's strongly based on emotion and personal belief more than anything else to me. Facts may influence it, but in the end it's simply how you as a person feel about something. If you don't let your emotions affect your opinions then I'm going to have to say you'd be a robot :p...

A few googled definitions for "opinion":

- A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?".

- A view, judgment, or appraisal formed in one person's mind about a particular matter.

- Many political policies and personal beliefs are merely Opinion - for want of a better term. Often people can't pinpoint why they hold a certain belief or opinion - it is merely there in their brain so they vehemently support it.

- A belief or judgement that is strongly held, but without actual proof of its truth.

- Opinion, unjustified in a logical sense, not yet tied down by way of reason (logos). In this regard, opinion may be true, but not presented in terms which make its claims stand as objective fact. For this reason, opinion is thought to be merely subjective, or private in its efficacy.


Looks like it's strongly based on emotion and personal belief more than anything else to me. Facts may influence it, but in the end it's simply how you as a person feel about something. If you don't let your emotions affect your opinions then I'm going to have to say you'd be a robot :p...


Agree with the definition

...are we still going in the same original topic, here?? or totally changed course??...:confused: :p

A few googled definitions for "opinion":

- A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?".

- A view, judgment, or appraisal formed in one person's mind about a particular matter.

- Many political policies and personal beliefs are merely Opinion - for want of a better term. Often people can't pinpoint why they hold a certain belief or opinion - it is merely there in their brain so they vehemently support it.

- A belief or judgement that is strongly held, but without actual proof of its truth.

- Opinion, unjustified in a logical sense, not yet tied down by way of reason (logos). In this regard, opinion may be true, but not presented in terms which make its claims stand as objective fact. For this reason, opinion is thought to be merely subjective, or private in its efficacy.


Looks like it's strongly based on emotion and personal belief more than anything else to me. Facts may influence it, but in the end it's simply how you as a person feel about something. If you don't let your emotions affect your opinions then I'm going to have to say you'd be a robot :p...


As a lawyer I must say that in a Courtroom or on an intellectual/academic setting the only opinion that matters is the one based on agreed facts and admissible evidence. Emotions and feelings leads to partiality and clouds one's true conclusion of the facts and evidence because the opinion is seen as biased based on one's prejudices. Another danger of being emotional is that the debate on whose opinion is right will often get out of hand and lead to violence. Imagine a courtroom where everyone gets emotional rather than rational.

Robots have no opinions they have programmes!

Maybe you should google the word "objectivity" and "subjectivity" instead. By the way google is hardly a reliable intellectual source.

According to dictionary.com, one of the definitions of "objective" is:

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

As a lawyer I must say that in a Courtroom or on an intellectual/academic setting the only opinion that matters is the one based on agreed facts and admissible evidence. Emotions and feelings leads to partiality and clouds one's true conclusion of the facts and evidence because the opinion is seen as biased based on one's prejudices. Another danger of being emotional is that the debate on whose opinion is right will often get out of hand and lead to violence. Imagine a courtroom where everyone gets emotional rather than rational.

Robots have no opinions they have programmes!

Maybe you should google the word "objectivity" and "subjectivity" instead. By the way google is hardly a reliable intellectual source.

According to dictionary.com, one of the definitions of "objective" is:

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

EMotions and feelings are God-given. I can't imagine if we are "not allowed" to use our personal feelings, interpretations in expressing opinions....

There are times and places to express one's God given emotions. If one wants to be perceived as objective one need to set aside one's emotions and concentrate on the hard cold facts and one's reason which is also God given. Emotions and reason do not mix.

Right right >_>, we're obviously not going to agree on this... as our... opinions differ :p. Regardless of the "true" definition of opinion, I'm sure I made it obvious what I meant when I used the word in an earlier post (whatever that was). I think we've gone waaay off topic :D!