Why Taufik Will Not Participate In Ae

with your assumption that Rudy Hartono would even be able to maximize the benefits of of the latest equipment with his techniques of the olden sdays.

there is such thing as the Rule of diminishing returns. it should be something common enough even for you to have heard. Please read up if you have not.

the gokart & F1 anology which you choose to ignore.

The Borneon BaddyNut

 

Using your analogy, are you saying if someone who drives a gokart wouldn't improve his speed by driving a F1 car. If you don't believe your performance would improve with high technology equipment compared to using primitive equipments then you are delusional or lacking in commonsense. Anyway the gokart and F1 analogy is not appropriate to badminton. The analogy has some value but not entirely applicable to badminton for the simple reason that in car racing the technology of the car is almost crucial to the performance of the driver but not so much as to racquet equipment in badminton. In badminton there is more reliance on the skill of the player than the equipment.

I wonder why are you making a fuss about what you call my baseless assumption (which is commonsense anyway) now and didn't attack my arguments earlier during the debate because you detected a weakness in my arguments. Your sudden shift to verbal assault on me is worrying.

I presume you have an economic background as you often use economic terminologies. You cannot apply economics to sports and you need to explain your economic concepts and apply them to the argument at hand for the benefit of the debate and the audience who might not be familiar with your concept. You cannot assume things unless it is commonsense or common knowledge.

 

You are all psychotic for continuing to respond to each other and getting no where and I'm an idiot for not untracking this post sooner.

*untracks post*

Oh, Happy New Year!

 

Dear Sabathiel,

do not have any phobia or underestimate the context of economics. please refer the following quoted definitions :-

(1) study of how people choose to use scarce resources to satisfy their needs and wants; a study of choice
www.radford.edu/~geog-web/alliance/vaworld/midgloss.html

(2) The study of how persons and society choose resources which have alternative uses, to produce various commodities over time and distribute them for consumption now and in the future, among various people and groups in society.
realestate24.tripod.com/dreamnovascotia/id26.html

(3) The study of choice and decision-making in a world with limited resources.
www.mcwdn.org/ECONOMICS/EcoGlossary.html

So you see Economics is a much wider and indepth field than you might aspect. There is no reason why facets of every day life can be understood by it very much more if we were only discussing about sports.


I'm glad you are begining to see the light

common sense per se without the benefit of information before hand can often be misleading. Here you have 'guessed' that my anology is not so relevent due to the lack of skill regarding race car sport driving. You are wrong to say so and would defo be of great insult to race car enthuisiast and those hands on directly ----> what would Alonso & the schumacher's say???

Nothing to worry about my friend. It is the passion and not fury present in the discussion

Regards

The Borneon BaddyNut

 

winning WC and olympic give prestige and eventual monies. However, on technical and difficulty basis, any other star tournaments are almost equally as hard and difficulty to win. Because of prestige and stars quality, players are under more stress and mental pressure. Yes Lin dan failed at athen but i doubt he would choke again in 2008. Susilo beat LD but how great is susilo now? The only tough match taufik had was against peter gade. Taufik beat shon Mo to take gold, a easy match. Where is shon Mo now?

For my angle, greatness is how great he/she does against his/her peers, not winning 1 or 2 high star studded tournaments. Ji Xinpeng won gold at sydney. Is Ji a greater MS player than peter gade, xzx, chen hong, LD who all have not won any olympic gold? Ji is just a small footnote in the badminton history. Taufik may end up being great but u can't say he is greatest base on his short record todate.

Winning many high star tournaments consecutively has more meaning. It even out the odds of getting lucky draws.

If you put taufik against rudy in a court with all the latest equipment available to them, it's still not a proper comparison. Taufik has all the past knowledge that rudy can't accumulate. Taufik cant be the greatest ever because by using the same analogy, i can say badminton pros from 2010-2020 era can kick taufik's ass like nothing (and yonex will come out a racket that can remember programmed strokes and has optional auto pilot mode. Yonex shoes will have pellets and can be activated by pressure to give certain certain number of explosive charge for the extra height jumpsmash)

 

i hope yonex doesnt read this thread or they'll steal my ideas

 

As we speak, cheung jr and kwun jr are already on their 5th video tapes/dvds studying current and past great players. Therefore, if i were u, i wouldnt be so quick declaring taufik as the greatest

 

I'm also gone from this post. I was neutral before btw. Who is the greatest doesnt matter to me.

 

Stop answering posts that are not directed at you. Why didn't you answer the posts that was directed to you? You again failed to answer my points in my last post to you.

Where is your proof that Taufik is a GENIUS WONDER KID? Show me a MAJOR international tournament that he won before he turned 20. None!

As I said there were many okay but not really great players who won the Olympics once and the WC once. To be great (not even the greatest!) you have to win these tournaments more than once to show that you are dominant in the game consistently throughout the years. 1 Olympic and 1 WC only show that you were dominant in a short period of time. The Olympics was in 2004 the WC in 2005 this is not a long time to dominate. In between Taufik lost often in other tournaments in early round and to obscure players like Simon Santoso easily. Lost to Lin Dan in the Sudirman Cup in straight sets and let his country down. Yang Yang won the WC 2 times in a row and won the exhibition at the Barcelona Olympics and this is a record that hasn't been broken and he is not called the greatest. I believe Yang Yang's record is better than Taufik. Can you name me a player who can win any tournament 8 times and 7 times in a row while being runner up twice in the same tournament? ANY TOURNAMENT! Because if you can do this it means you were consistent for a long period of time and it takes a longer time to beat this record (at least 7-8 years unlike Taufik's record which can be broken in 2 years, now the WC is held every year, in 1 year).

Ask any top player and top coach which tournament is prestigious in addition to WC and the Olympics and they will all say, including Taufik, AE! AE is more competitive than the Olympics because the Olympics only allows 2 players from each country. So only 2 from China, 2 from Indonesia, 2 from Korea and 2 from Denmark. How competitive is that?

 

What is your badminton qualification to make such a judgement? How old were you when you watched Rudy play since you don't have any CD or DVDs of those matches I presume you watch them on TV live broadcasts. There were no live broadcasts in Rudy's prime era (late 60s and early 70s). You were born in 1969 so how could you see Rudy play during those times.

Did you watch Taufik lost often? Where was his prowess then? The only special about Taufik is his backhand and net play. Every other top player can match Taufik in the other areas. Zhao Jian Hua is better in the area of deception, stroke craft and entetaining performance. Liem Swie King's jump smash is more spectacular than Taufik's. People always wait in great anticipation to see King do his smash. Icuk Sugiarto had better stamina. Morten Frost Hansen had better patience in rallies. Yang Yang had better reflexes and speed. Heryanto Arbi had better explosive play. Rudy Hartono had better brains and shot selection.

 

What light but I am sorry to say you haven't shed any light yet.

Commonsense is based on accepted facts by the majority of people. Saying commonsense needs the benefit of information is redundant since commonsense already contains information accepted by most people. I never said that car racing does not need skill. What I am saying the skill factor in badminton is based more on the player as a bad player with the best equipment would still get creamed by a good player with primitive equipment. The same cannot be said about car racing a good race car driver with a gokart cannot beat a bad race car driver with a F1 car. The technology factor in car racing is much more important and crucial in car racing than in badminton. Car racing is a much more technologically driven and based sport.

 

Referring to bold part: a good driver with a go kart would make it to the finish line while a bad driver with a F1 car is many times more likely to crash the car in the first 5 corners. Hence drop in performance due to technology. Hence the Law of Diminishing Returns. Hence the lack of logic in your argument here and many others. Hence the need for proper information & enlightment before common sense and logic can be equated as the same. hence the information about you shows the lack of logic in me continuing this monotony discusion.

COOLER we are talking about cars.... where in the good country are you???

This is getting very tirring.

You obviously give very different weightages from what i do.... and our logic differ so greatly. yours appear to be so simple......... you almost remind me of the second guy who got fired in Season three of the apprentice. to be specific just watch the board meeting.

Secondly your compulsive need claim yourself to be all 100% correct according to your own logic......... now that's trully scary....


The Borneon BaddyNut

 

Same Same

but that didn't save you from enduring what you had to go thru now did it. all it took was one post.

It is wise to stop. me? i'm a sucker i suppose

The Borneon BaddyNut

 

LAST EXAMPLE I PRESENT TO YOU FOR YOUR SALVATION (NON RELIGIOUS CONTEXT), BUT I DOUBT IT

'Before it was COMMON SENSE to MAN that the world was flat. After being INFORMED ACCORDINGLY, we now know BETTER.'

the Borneon BaddyNut

 

You are now getting better in this debate by explaining your counter arguments. That is the way to d it rather than whine about other people's points you actually counter their points with your own facts or commonsense. I said you lack logic because you didn't present your own version of logic. I must say that your logic also rely on many assumptions but that is okay ass long as you can argue the point. That is debate.

I must disagree with your example as there is nothing to suggest a bad race car driver (not just car driver) would crash with a F1 because there is no need for the driver to go to full speed to beat the Gokart driver. We could assume or speculate that this driver would be careful as this is all he need to do to win with a F1. I also cannot see the application of your example to badminton. How could an old player "crash" with modern equipment. The lightness and tight quality strings of the racquet would make the player from the past play more powerful and faster strokes. His wrist work would be more flexible and hence his speed and reflexes will improve. The opposite can be said about the modern player playing with primitive equipment and we haven't deal with how the shoes would impact their footwork yet.

Some debating tip for you if I may. Use simple arguments or simple logic to illustrate your point as the jury/audience will digest and remember this better than complicated ones. The simpler the better.

Our logic do not differ it is our arguments that differ.

A good debater need to be persuasive and compelling in presenting the correctness of his argument. Conviction in your arguments is the best emotion to persuade people. Not all lawyers who argue their points really believe in their arguments but they at least need th appearance of conviction to persuade their audience (judge or jury). If the person arguing doesn't appear to be convinced 100% of his arguments then how do you expect the people he is trying to persuade to believe in them? Nothing scary about that technique.

 

True! But to overturn conventional wisdom commonsense you actually need to prove the old knowledge is wrong like what Columbus and Magellan did. Then the new proven knowledge becomes the new commonsense.

 

Sabathiel, which Guinness Book of Records are you referring to re Rudy Hartono? And what exactly does it say? Incidentally, there is a Guinness Book of Badminton, published by the same company that owns the Guinness Book of Records, which I think is a more accurate Guinness version of badminton of the past. I have such a book, which is specific to badminton only. Rudy is just one of many greats of the past recorded in this Book.

 

huh?
i had only discussed about badminton. I didnt participate in your car discussion.

The resident location is shown under my handle on every post