User Tag List

Page 20 of 23 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 LastLast
Results 324 to 340 of 385
  1. #324
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SibugiChai View Post
    have to agree on this, this time it was too obvious... It's like murder inside the police station and u expect police do nothing ?.
    What kind of police do you have/expect?

    I expect the police to find the murderer whether it was at the station or at remote home.

    This is the hypocrisy that is so frustrating. So what degree of subtlety is sufficient when throwing a game? On a scale of 1 (obvious, as occurred) to 10 (full effort), what is your passing grade; 5? 6? 7? Who will judge? the BWF? IOC? Fans with iphones and androids with the new "grade-this-olympic-event" app?

    Is it not simple and clear if you have straight knockout rounds? And if they want to eliminate intentional walkovers, then they can devise a system whereby the team forfeiting the game loses all potential prize money and rankings from that tournament, or some other meaningful incentive.

    Are these things not all within the control AND responsibility of BWF? If so, shouldn't they shoulder the responsibility of this fiasco?

  2. #325
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raymond View Post
    Suddenly I have this crazy idea -

    I remember this IQ question I ran into when I was a kid. There's a horse race between two people. The unusual thing is that, they're trying to lose. Who ever loses actually wins the race. So for a long time, neither one moves. Finally, they figure out a way - they exchange horses. Now a real race begins.

    So to avoid this kinda of throw-matches, perhaps we can add one more twist, the winner of the match gets to choose who to advance in that match, themselves or their opponents. So the players would still have the strategic goal achieved, while the audience get what they pay for. Win-win!!
    Brilliant idea!!!

  3. #326
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    12,016
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanY View Post
    that's exactly what i'm saying.as long as you don't made them (bwf) look bad they will just turn a blind eye, as always.
    That's not the point. It has to very obvious as proof.-Btw, which pair are ranked higher? Taiwan or Japan? - What is their H2H? - Have the Japan pair won SS titles,GP titles to showcase how good they are? In the match vs Taiwan, how many times Japan serve into the net, send shots wide, smash into net, didnt retrieve easy shot ?
    If not,Japan can argue they lost to better opponent. I rate the Taiwanese as better than Japan pair. Plus, Japan struggled against the lower ranked Canadians yesterday.

    The 4 pairs were much too obvious,they can win award for worst acting.
    Last edited by eaglehelang; 08-03-2012 at 02:13 AM.

  4. #327
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raymond View Post
    I was entertaining with some thought like this. Apparently, you've a good command of English, and was able to articulate it very clearly.
    Thanks for the compliment, but I'm just an immigrant who learned English as a third language (albeit at a young age). The credit should really go to CS Lewis whose Narnia books (among his many works) have served as masterful teachers.

  5. #328
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    malaysia
    Posts
    3,927
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjashik View Post
    What kind of police do you have/expect?

    I expect the police to find the murderer whether it was at the station or at remote home.

    This is the hypocrisy that is so frustrating. So what degree of subtlety is sufficient when throwing a game? On a scale of 1 (obvious, as occurred) to 10 (full effort), what is your passing grade; 5? 6? 7? Who will judge? the BWF? IOC? Fans with iphones and androids with the new "grade-this-olympic-event" app?

    Is it not simple and clear if you have straight knockout rounds? And if they want to eliminate intentional walkovers, then they can devise a system whereby the team forfeiting the game loses all potential prize money and rankings from that tournament, or some other meaningful incentive.

    Are these things not all within the control AND responsibility of BWF? If so, shouldn't they shoulder the responsibility of this fiasco?
    to prove a murder, u have to proof it beyond reasonable doubt... what yuyang & frens did is provide the police with murder weapon, motives and even video recording of their act...

  6. #329
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SibugiChai View Post
    to prove a murder, u have to proof it beyond reasonable doubt... what yuyang & frens did is provide the police with murder weapon, motives and even video recording of their act...

    Not that I much like this murder analogy, but...

    No, they did not provide the MOTIVE, BWF did!

    Otherwise, it's like arresting the gunman, but letting the mob boss who ordered the hit go unfettered.
    Last edited by jjashik; 08-03-2012 at 02:18 AM.

  7. #330
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    malaysia
    Posts
    3,927
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jjashik View Post
    Not that I much like this murder analogy, but...

    No, they did not provide the MOTIVE, BWF did!

    Otherwise, it's like arresting the gunman, but letting the mob boss who ordered the hit go unfettered.
    BWF provide Motive ? LOL...

    Players wanna lose... that's the motive...

    To blame BWF is like to blame a women who got rape because she dress pretty or a rich man being rob because he is rich...

    Further more there are no evidences to convict the mob boss

  8. #331
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    [0,0,0]
    Posts
    497
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raymond View Post
    Suddenly I have this crazy idea -

    So to avoid this kinda of throw-matches, perhaps we can add one more twist, the winner of the match gets to choose who to advance in that match, themselves or their opponents. So the players would still have the strategic goal achieved, while the audience get what they pay for. Win-win!!
    I hate to pee on your parade with logic if someone else hasn't already pointed this out but, what about the other group winners? Couldn't the Danes (who won their group) in this incident just choose whether the Chinese team in their group plays the other Chinese team? Which group winners choose first?

  9. #332
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    12,016
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    BWF should ask the Lawn Bowling Association how they dealt with a similar case, haha. Wonder what was in the 13 page report of the Lawn Bowls case. I suppose such sports easier to proof, miss the mark continuously by many inches when one is a champion and leading the game would raise red flags.

    Motive for losing : to place themselves in a more beneficial draw the next round.
    If detective want to proof murder, must find out motive for murder. Here, the 4 pairs have motive
    Last edited by eaglehelang; 08-03-2012 at 02:40 AM.

  10. #333
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    TW, SG, HK
    Posts
    7,314
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The problem is, more than 50% of the audience on Tuesday evening was made up of people who do not follow the Super Series and Grand Prix circuits. Most will have seen or read the results from 1 possibly 2 tournaments in the rest of the year.

    It could be argued that this problem has been created by LOCOG. Due to the random allocation of tickets, it meant that many people applied for tickets to events that they weren't fully interested in. These people got tickets, and others like me (who I'm sure you're aware by now follow badminton) missed out on the chance to see players who we support and now others who probably can't even pronounce the names of some of these players got to see them compete in the Olympics.

    If they had followed badminton in the last 18 months, or simply looked at the draw, then they would understand what was going on. Sure it's not a great spectacle - far from it, however the main aim of everyone competing at a tournament is to win the whole tournament.

    If by losing you have a much better chance of winning overall, why wouldn't you? At the end of the day, the players are there to achieve the best medal possible, there is no prize money at the Olympic games, therefore as the article says, the tickets sales revenue isn't going to the players.

    It's true that maybe the way both sides went about the match wasn't the best way it could have been done, but the "die was cast" BWF created a disaster waiting to happen and of course if all the conditions are correct then it will happen. A bunch of "angry" people who probably didn't follow much badminton got upset at competitors trying to win a medal. They missed the fundamental reason for losing the match, and what's worse is they blamed the wrong people for what took place.

    Now, 8 players have had their dream shattered, all will be too old by the time the next Olympics comes around. Was it right to DQ them? It's difficult to say, but the BWF need to take a long look at themselves here. They created the problem, knew it could happen, yet did nothing to fix it. The women's doubles tournament was ruined as a result.

  11. #334
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    905
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thunder.tw View Post
    I hate to pee on your parade with logic if someone else hasn't already pointed this out but, what about the other group winners? Couldn't the Danes (who won their group) in this incident just choose whether the Chinese team in their group plays the other Chinese team? Which group winners choose first?
    The choice I was talking about is whether to advance yourself if you win the match, or the loser in this same match. You only get to make a choice if you win, and make one that's advantageous to your cause. It's just that simple. I don't see a logic problem here.

  12. #335
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    762
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LD rules! View Post
    The problem is, more than 50% of the audience on Tuesday evening was made up of people who do not follow the Super Series and Grand Prix circuits. Most will have seen or read the results from 1 possibly 2 tournaments in the rest of the year.

    It could be argued that this problem has been created by LOCOG. Due to the random allocation of tickets, it meant that many people applied for tickets to events that they weren't fully interested in. These people got tickets, and others like me (who I'm sure you're aware by now follow badminton) missed out on the chance to see players who we support and now others who probably can't even pronounce the names of some of these players got to see them compete in the Olympics.

    If they had followed badminton in the last 18 months, or simply looked at the draw, then they would understand what was going on. Sure it's not a great spectacle - far from it, however the main aim of everyone competing at a tournament is to win the whole tournament.

    If by losing you have a much better chance of winning overall, why wouldn't you? At the end of the day, the players are there to achieve the best medal possible, there is no prize money at the Olympic games, therefore as the article says, the tickets sales revenue isn't going to the players.

    It's true that maybe the way both sides went about the match wasn't the best way it could have been done, but the "die was cast" BWF created a disaster waiting to happen and of course if all the conditions are correct then it will happen. A bunch of "angry" people who probably didn't follow much badminton got upset at competitors trying to win a medal. They missed the fundamental reason for losing the match, and what's worse is they blamed the wrong people for what took place.

    Now, 8 players have had their dream shattered, all will be too old by the time the next Olympics comes around. Was it right to DQ them? It's difficult to say, but the BWF need to take a long look at themselves here. They created the problem, knew it could happen, yet did nothing to fix it. The women's doubles tournament was ruined as a result.
    You still dont get it, DO YOU? Just because something has happened in past/ there has been a cheat a culprit who has been a habitual offender and was getting away with it because of certain reasons doesn't makes it allright... And you follow the sport since long but you still dont know what the spirit of the game is all about that makes you a naive in understanding the game... Whatever needed to be done has been done, JPN players got away with the same and got a silver just because that was hard to prove, thats the only reason for their survival here at this Olympics... You cheat you lay evidences, you get warning and still you do the same and since you got away with it the last time you did it you expect you should get away with it even now at this stage... You were simply being an idiot to think so!!

  13. #336
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    905
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd mentioned this elsewhere before, but would like to re-iterate it here once again.

    There were more than 8 people involved, in case you didn't notice. CHN, e.g., had 2 coaches for their 2 players. There're 3 intermissions when the coaches could "coach" their players.

    If the coaches believed their players were on the wrong track, would they not have advised the players, and made any correction? It appeared they're in agreement with the players.

    The only surprise I find is, the players continued to do this, after the referee came out and held the black card to warn them. Did they not understand the black card, or not able to understand English? This is a grand tournament, how could they treat this warning lightly? (I don't mean to say they should give up on their strategy to lose, but to do a better job in acting.)

    But of course, this is a no-win situation, given both teams wanted to lose. It's interesting to see the players actually saved opponents shots that were out. It's an escalating episode. So in order to make sure opponents couldn't save the shots, the players had to play something really ridiculous.

    Some of you thinks someone's veiw points here are naive. I happen to think that a well designed system would have prevented this. The format, in hindsight, seems amateurish. Why're there so many small RR groups with only 2 people (I'm referring to Singles), and they made the draw for the elimination round known ahead? If it were BWF that helped organized that, you'd have expected them to do a better job.

    If BWF should choose the same format in the future, do you really think no one would throw matches any more? Yes, people have learned, but probably to not do it so obviously. I mean how do you prove someone throw a match. Just look at some of the best players in the world (WSX, e.g.). She would choke in the Final (or earlier) without any motives. The losing team could blame it on their mental weakness.

    Yes, I embrace this strategy, given the system. It's only logical. People who argue otherwise had put the cart in front of the horses.
    Last edited by raymond; 08-03-2012 at 10:56 AM.

  14. #337
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    762
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LD rules! View Post
    others who probably can't even pronounce the names of some of these players got to see them compete in the Olympics.
    If other people who werent following badminton earlier pay for it watch it and like it its only going to help the sports popularity, The sport gets the BIG stage and you should be hapy for it. I can understand your frustration for not being able to be there but then in the process we shouldnt be insulting any one.
    With the difference in sounds and dialect it gets difficult to pronounce anything like the natives do correctly specially when you come across those sounds just a couple of time. You should also understand English only has 26 alphabets and 5+2 sounds so and they try hard to fit in everything with these.
    or else it could be said back,
    Yes ofcourse its difficult to pronounce certain names which are pronounced exactly like sound made by a silverware thrown down the stairs... CHING CHANG, CHONG PING,Ding Ning, Xin Zhang Zing.

    I never intend to dis-respect, its just an analogy... and if it hurts anyone I apologize

  15. #338
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    905
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If BWF wants the players to play to their best ability, they should come up with something better. Garbage in, garbage out.

    A simple example would demonstrate how well-designed rules would motivate everyone to maintain the desired view/motives.

    Consider division of an apple between 2 people (some here would have seen this else where). One of them is to cut the apple. Exactly how he'd cut it could depend on who would choose first. Of course, you can say, the cutter should be a fair-minded person. If he isn't, you can accuse him/boo him. But if the rule set out is that the other person (the non-cutter) gets to choose first, it is simple to see the outcome would have to be a fair division.

  16. #339
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    malaysia
    Posts
    22,181
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SibugiChai View Post
    BWF provide Motive ? LOL...

    Players wanna lose... that's the motive...

    To blame BWF is like to blame a women who got rape because she dress pretty or a rich man being rob because he is rich...

    Further more there are no evidences to convict the mob boss
    hey
    thats my word
    haha

  17. #340
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    12,016
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raymond View Post
    If BWF wants the players to play to their best ability, they should come up with something better. Garbage in, garbage out.

    ....
    It's not just the system but more stringent enforcement. However good or strict the rules, there will be those who try to manipulate it. Most obvious are of course paying bribes for match fixing types. If the sports association investigates each suspected match manipulation seriously and enforce punishments if sufficient evidence, then it would not be so blatant. All these years BWF did not act upon the many complaints of walkovers,etc.
    Another is better protection for whisteblowers

Page 20 of 23 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •