Discussion in 'General Forum' started by ironchef, Mar 24, 2005.

1. ### ironchef Regular Member

Joined:
Sep 26, 2004
Messages:
83
0
What if we introduced something like when you have service, and you win a rally, you earn 2 points, and when you're against service, and you win the rally, you only earn 1 point. This way, you would still preserve the advantage of having service, but you could incorporate rally scoring. And in doubles, if you think about it, the most points you could gain when you didn't have service would be 2 points...1 for 'taking out' each server. This would prevent winning a lot of points off 'flukes' when it's not your serve, such as the bird hitting net and bouncing over. What do you think? And to win, it's whoever gets over 20 points first.

So lets say for a doubles sequence, team A starts with serve, and they win 1 rally. The score is then 2-0. Then team B wins the rally, and earns serve back. 2-1. Team B scores 2 rallies in a row off first service. 2-5. Team A wins 1 rally, to give team B second service. 3-5. Team A wins another rally, to win service back. 4-5. Team A wins 3 rallies in a row off first service. 10-5. Team B wins 1 rally. 10-6...and so on.

Is this confusing? i call it ironchef scoring.

#1
2. ### johnps Regular Member

Joined:
Sep 27, 2004
Messages:
158
1
Location:
Singapore
You are really creative in coming out with this system.

However, I thought the idea behind changing the scoring system was to simplify it and not to complicate it further. Your idea will probably require a mathematician or a mediator to assist the umpire to keep track of the scores for each match.

#2
3. ### Gollum Regular Member

Joined:
May 23, 2003
Messages:
4,513
120
Location:
Surrey, UK
I think we should have:

• 1 point for the receiver winning a rally
• 1.5 points for the server winning a rally
• Or 15 points for the server winning a rally, if he serves like in tennis.

#3
4. ### SystemicAnomaly Regular Member

Joined:
Sep 21, 2004
Messages:
1,271
9
Occupation:
pre-Occupied
Location:
Santa Clara, CA
Now you're really asking for some math! Math-challenged or fraction-phobic players would have a nervous breakdown if point this scheme was implemented. How about whole numbers instead... 2 points for a receiver (rally) win & 3 points for a server winning the rally.

Very interesting ideas tho' Gollum & ironchef!

#4
5. ### White_Gemini91 Regular Member

Joined:
Mar 15, 2006
Messages:
20
0
Location:
Auckland
Yea.. I think that itz being too complicated to the new idea of scoring of yours.. because even now people forgets to add the point to their rally, and some add the point for themselves when he/she lost the rally coz of the infleunce of the old scoring system.. so i dont think the IBF should change it again coz then it will get on some ppl's nerves..

#5
6. ### -George- Regular Member

Joined:
Mar 28, 2006
Messages:
23
0
Occupation:
Location:
Northern Ireland
the only problem i see with the ironchef system is that games will be extremely short if you play to 20 points, it could be over in 10 rallies. the main problem with the new system is that the games are shorter, but this system is worse in that respect. fundamentally its a good idea, but i think the points total should be higher, probably 30 or so.

#6
7. ### White_Gemini91 Regular Member

Joined:
Mar 15, 2006
Messages:
20
0
Location:
Auckland
now THATS to long.. i usually loose it when i player longer and longer, i was winning half way and when i realised i got some much more to play until 21 i somehow loosened and played bad and lost the game

#7
8. ### Blakey101 Regular Member

Joined:
Apr 24, 2006
Messages:
18
0
Occupation:
Student
Location:
Surrey, UK
Why can't the IBF keep the scoring the same....you only win 1 point when your serving, play upto 15 points and have to win by 3 clear points...

Seems stupid to me keep changing it..

#8