Results 137 to 153 of 167
Thread: Past vs Present...
11-30-2009, 08:40 PM #137
national has different meaning depending how competitive your country's sport.
A 19 yr old TH is at least 2 leverl better than howard shu but both are 'national' players.
A 19 yr old howard shu may got into national team under different motive than say TH when he got into national. In short, one by merit and the other by charity.
look at the current US ranking MS as of Nov 17. 2009
1 Jinadasa, Nicholas
2 Umrani, Ajit
3 Lee, Hock Lai
4 Shear, Ted
5 Gouw, Daniel
6 Setiadi, Arnold
7 Vyas, Nisarg
8 Pongnairat, Sattawat
9 Davies, Neil
10 Hussey, Ben
11 Rossi, Sandro
12 Shu, Howard
come on, even in canada, #12 doesn't get into national team unless for charity reason. IMO, our mike beres, 36.5 years old, can beat all of the above MS.
I dont mean to start a US vs CAN debate. I just want to show at what level was of howard shu.
Last edited by cooler; 11-30-2009 at 08:46 PM.
12-01-2009, 03:33 AM #138
^^Off topic-What is that ranking based on??..^^
..is that ranking similar to the current much talked about and much questioned BWF ranking??..Is the list reflective of the talent? Or is it based on how many tournaments a player entered (you forgot to list how many tournaments each player entered)??
Looking at the list, most probably Lee Hock Lai, who is not a U.S. citizen, is the best of the bunch.
Check out this final list of MS qualifiers @ this yr's U.S. National team trial:
1. Sattawat Pongnairat
2. Howard Shu
3. Ted Shear
4. Nicholas Jinadasa
5. Matt Johnson
6. Igor Marmer
7. Yau Hwa Chan
8. Arnold Setiadi
What do you mean "one by merit and one by charity"??..You meant Howard Shu made the U.S. team out of charity??..If under different motive, mind shedding a light on that motive??..
Last edited by ctjcad; 12-01-2009 at 03:38 AM.
12-01-2009, 10:43 AM #139
12-01-2009, 10:54 AM #140
it is also obvious u have no fresh or strong stand alone case to support your view but only trying to discredit or poke holes on our example case -not working tho LOL
I believe u would not do well under the NSS since it favors offensive and creative shot making players, not for the old reactionary and defensive type of players LOL
Last edited by cooler; 12-01-2009 at 10:59 AM.
12-01-2009, 11:01 AM #141
There are so many holes in your argument LOL. For example, so you are saying ZJH could do better against today's player? In other words Ardi losing to young US player could not serve as evidence for "past cannot match present"?
Btw, LCW is a defensive player. So is today's LD. More precisely, both of them are "counter-attack" players. In contrast, PG, TH, CH, XXZ are pure offensive players. Badminton is not as simple as "offensive strong, defensive weak". Furthermore did you forget CJ and LHI when you talk about "old style", "new style"?
My opinion of styles, from defensive to offensive:
CJ, LHI --> LCW --> LD --> TH, CH --> PG, XXZ.
12-01-2009, 11:04 AM #142
As usual, you cannot say anything with information and turn to personal attacks...
At the pure amateur level (which I believe both you and I belong to), I don't think it matters which system is used. 15x3, 21x3, 7x5, 5x9, whatever. The one plays better wins, as simple as that.
12-01-2009, 11:13 AM #143
1. LOL, if i have so many holes in my argument, why did you follow up with more questions??? LOL, Show me those holes instead LOL
Today's players are more omni-fensive than before. This is just common sense, we know more about tactic, skills, training, etc than previous players and coaches. Even the great tang fu knows more about badminton today than we he was at his peak form.
Let me say this, when LD is playing, ALL his opponents are defensive players, period. LOLOLOLOL
Last edited by cooler; 12-01-2009 at 11:18 AM.
12-01-2009, 12:01 PM #144
Or are you telling me that Howard Shu is stronger than Sun Jun? (Since he is present? LOL)
Why don't you just accept the fact that today's player are stronger and stop your non-sense?
12-01-2009, 12:45 PM #145
It seems you don't see the big difference between one game, 7 pts and 3 games 15 pts?
ZJH at 32/33 has no difficulty adapting to the pace of the game 5 yrs after his retirement, but due to age and lack of systematic training, he won't be able to keep up with the pace for the whole game/match and therefore if it's a full match, he would definitely lose. Where's the contradiction? confused:
"past great is no good because he stopped systematic training"? Isn't it common sense that "any player is no good without systematic training"?
Just look at CH. 2 years out of national team (and he is indeed under systematic training, just not as high quality as the training he used to be under), he has already fallen to the level of a good provincial player. What would happen in 10 years if he stops training now, and spend his time walking around coaching kids and playing some local tournaments now and then? Would he be able to beat the a US MS?
Therefore, a past great without systematic training losing to a young gun is not a surprise at all.
Last edited by ye333; 12-01-2009 at 12:50 PM.
12-01-2009, 12:51 PM #146
12-01-2009, 01:13 PM #147
we are talking about present vs current best. Lets not compare out of condition vs new condition. yes, wong8egg had highlighted the video of ardy losing to a young lad. This video served 2 purposes:
1. that older generation tactic and skills are no longer potion enough for today's game. Past players have stamina but less speed. Today's top players have both.
2. we acknowledged that aged players have higher mountain to climb to beat younger and lesser experienced players. It will be a case by case basis. The point was, at #12 ranking of a no powerhouse MS country, he still beat ardy the ex-pro with titles galore. Since ardy competed, surely he felt he has the chance to win and fit enough to compete.
this thread is about debating point #1. Don't try to inject point #2 as our sole argument here. Point #2 is just a side menu, not the main course. By hammering point #2, u r going off topic. Show me the money on point #1
Last edited by cooler; 12-01-2009 at 01:18 PM.
12-07-2009, 04:46 AM #148
So, here are the answers (as promised)..
- Probably not.
- He has no sentimental feeling. Just from what he recall.
Then i asked 5 other people, all varying from different ages, but who've watched YY and ZHJ play in the 80s. Taking into account both YY and LD are playing with the same racket equipment.
Person A (another M'sian fellow, same age as the person i chatted with, in his 40s): He told me, in is opinion, it's very hard to tell since they came from different eras. But YY would win over LD simply because he could set up and not give LD much chance to attack.
Person B (another M'sian fellow, older gentleman, in his 50s): He told me, in his opinion, LD would win simply because he's a smarter player esp. late in the match.
Person C (another M'sian fellow but a younger generation than the others, in his 30s): He told me, in his opinion, it's hard to say. But technique wise YY would outmaneuver LD and would win over LD. He even tried to copy YY's style when he was growing up. He told me, the difference nowadays is that players are quicker and more explosive because of the level of training. If LD were to win, it won't be easy and the scoring system would matter.
Person D (a HK fellow who've followed badminton for a long time, in his 40s): He told me, in his opinion, it's really hard to tell. The game and style at that time was different, a slower pace and a lot of rallies. LD would win but more so with the NSS. But if he were to win with the OSS, it would be a very tough one.
Person E (an INA fellow, younger than the other 4 older folks, in his 30s): He told me, in his opinion, LD would win because he's much faster and has more stamina and power in his game. However he is not sure which scoring system would LD prevail in.
So, there you have it. A gamut of frank opinions and no, they were given without any under the table deal..
Last edited by ctjcad; 12-07-2009 at 04:51 AM.
12-08-2009, 05:52 PM #149
He believes YY could penetrate LD's defense but probably not able to outmaneuver him. That's require FHF smashing power plus extreme precision and I don't see anyone has that ability so far.
It doesn't make sense that a player with less powerful smash could penetrate a more mobile player and not the vice versa.
Ever wonder why today's MS use mostly low serve? The reason is simple, today's player can leap from the base and hit a killer shot unlike in the past that a high serve could give a server the advantage. That's explain today's player are more agile, more dynamic and fitter.
I find it extremely annoying that people always use the OSS as an excuse or turtle shell for the old school player. The better player win and that's like the law of physics and it doesn't matter how you draw the equation. Peter Gade cannot beat LD in the OSS and he still can't in the NSS!
LD is fitter, faster, stronger, more mobile, and has more stamina but people suggest that YY would win if we count differently?! (Look how Table Tennis has changed their scoring and guess who is still winning most? )
I remember each time when I beat the old folks in my club using the NSS , they blame the scoring. And when I beat them in the OSS, they blame their partner, lighting and blah blah blah...
Feel free to pass on to your friend.
Last edited by Wong8Egg; 12-08-2009 at 06:02 PM.
12-08-2009, 05:58 PM #150
12-08-2009, 06:03 PM #151
Another factor to consider is the equipment used during that time and now (if LD were still using the same racket technology as before, would he be able to generate the same smash? and vice versa for the older players). Yes, it's hard to tell/judge.
The comparison was strictly based on each player's physical abilities/techniques.
- I'll pass whatever you wrote to the person i chatted with, but i don't think it'll convince him to think otherwise.
- Have you asked the same question(s) to some of your baddy friends (who actually watched YY, ZJH play) in your club?? What are their responses??..
Last edited by ctjcad; 12-08-2009 at 06:05 PM.
12-08-2009, 10:42 PM #152
let me begin on their comment on today's equips. In their argument for the YY and ZJH case, it is similar to excuses that wong8 got from the old folks, they lost because of NSS, if not, it's the lighting, floor, if not that,it is because of wong8's better racket, shoes, blah blah blah. During the peak years of YY and ZJH, they were using cab20, IMO, which is still a great racket, and form the core design of today's racket, all carbon fiber, seamless joint, 2U range (pros actually prefer U to 2U). There are players today still seeking cab 20/21/22, so i do not think their old cab20 made them perform anything less in term of racket performance. I bet YY and ZJU likely using bg65, today's LD uses bg65ti (during yonex sponsor years). On the string side, again, i don't see equip difference here that could influence performance difference between past and present. If your frens think the MP grommet, armortec shape frame, or the nanocarbon powder in the resin could help YY and ZJH to play better than today's pros, then i really question their confidence they have on YY /ZJH's natural ability in the first place.
Last edited by cooler; 12-08-2009 at 10:50 PM.
12-08-2009, 10:57 PM #153
Last edited by cooler; 12-08-2009 at 11:00 PM.
By allyjack110 in forum Badminton Rackets / EquipmentReplies: 35: 05-29-2011, 03:40 AM
By bad_fanatic in forum Badminton Rackets / EquipmentReplies: 8: 12-23-2008, 03:17 PM
By Cheung in forum Professional PlayersReplies: 25: 10-16-2007, 10:12 PM
By demolidor in forum Badminton Tournament Video SharingReplies: 4: 01-18-2006, 09:15 AM
By V1lau in forum Professional PlayersReplies: 1: 04-17-2005, 08:47 PM