User Tag List

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 69 to 85 of 203
  1. #69
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    icy cold place
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To introduce this 2-person max rule ahead of RIO (I call it making rule on the fly, clearly to contain CHN domination), when the players, say CHN MS, have been training all their lives preparing to play OLY16, but denied by this rule, is bordering on criminal.
    This rule basically destroys many players aspirations. For those who embrace and accept this rule, how do you feel if you are the third player affected by this rule when you train all your life for this moment, that you would have qualified in OLY12 but disqualified for OLY16 because you are too good for the ROW and some nuts introduced this rule without you seeing it coming.
    If the players know this rule is in place, and they still choose to invest their time playing this sport, so be it.

  2. #70
    Moderator cobalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arrakis
    Posts
    8,664
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm having a little difficulty in understanding this para from BWF document on the OG2016 qualification system...

    http://bwfbadminton.org/file.aspx?id=529944&dl=1

    ...and the para is (on page 4):

    "If an athlete qualifies (and is selected) in more than one (1) event, then the unused athlete quota place will be allocated to the next best ranked athlete of the same gender in the singles event on the World Ranking Lists of 5 May 2016. The offer of this Quota Place will however be conditional on the athlete who is qualified in more than one (1) events being confirmed and entered by his/her NOC in the Rio 2016 Olympic Games."

    Obviously, such an athlete would be a doubles specialist. So the unused quota place would be allocated to a singles player? And from the same NOC or the next on the BWF rankings list?

  3. #71
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    19
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    All nations are playing under the same rules. If a certain country was not allowed participation at all, or allowed less spots than other countries, now that would be discrimination.
    So, then I found my own Badminton country to join Olympia. Or I change my nationality to Northkorean or Nigerian to participate in Olympia.

    What I want to say that to make it 100% fair is to give a country with a HUGE population also more Olympia slots.

  4. #72
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    292
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanY View Post
    There are always winners and losers for all these changes for qualification, but unfortunately the losers are those who’re too good and the winners are those just c**p!

    Using today’s ranking lists as an example, not just China will suffer.
    Top 32 singles will be denied of their places are;
    ...............
    and are you still think it's good for badminton?
    Hans-Kristian Vittinghus why not?? He is the number 2 Dane. But these lists are not completely relevant anyway, since it's up to the national comittees which 2 players/pairs they want to send, am I right? It doesn't have to be the top 2, even though in most cases I guess it will be.

    Yeah I think it's a shame too, that so many good players/pairs miss out. They should make the draw twice as big. It's Olympics for god's sake.
    Last edited by vixter; 02-26-2014 at 07:34 PM.

  5. #73
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    icy cold place
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vixter View Post
    Lol no I don't think so. I was comparing some changes in table tennis to similar changes in tennis, and how at least in tennis they were certainly not made to stop a country's domination.



    I don't know what the goal is with this rule change in quotation. And like I said, I am also not for it. I think it was fine as it was. Assuming the rankings stay the same, Wang Shixian could once again miss out on Olympic participation.

    But nations can still send 2, so nothing is stopping a final between Lin Dan and Chen Long, assuming they both qualify. Either way the quality of badminton would certainly not be affected in the latter stages. All the "scrubs" get beaten in round 1.
    If OLY rules stay as is, CHN could send 3 MS/WS to OLY16 and chances of all-CHN final is enhanced. With only 2 players qualified, probability reduce by 1/3. If this rule has been the norm all along, and some chinese kidos still stupidly wants to invest (more like sacrifice) their time pursuing this sport hoping to represent CHN in baddy, then power to that dumb kid. The point is to introduce this rule now mid-way to OLY16 is insanely unfair and blatantly clear to control CHN for having done such a darn good job bringing up a stable of world beaters that the ROW cannot compete.
    Agree with you that WSX again losing out. So, how does anyone who embrace this rule feels if he/she is WSX or DPY who trained their butts out and gotten screwed. Of course, 'anyone' or IOC does not give a flying care cos it is not them or their children who are affected. Admit it!
    As for TSB doing jumping jack and cheer leading this parade, better if the rule changes to 1-player only, that will enhance LCW winning gold and getting M$ bonus, TSB gets a share too.

  6. #74
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    icy cold place
    Posts
    3,778
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vixter View Post
    It's not discrimination. If a world no. 3 is not eligible, it's because no.1 and no.2 is from the same country. Tough luck! If you want to participate as badminton player in Olympics, you better make sure you are top 2 in your country. If the competition in your own country is simply too strong, there is always the choice of representing another nation. Just look at Yao Jie, Pi Hongyan and Xu Huaiwen.
    I would agree with you if this rule has been the norm from day 1, that players getting into this sport know this 2-player limit. Refer to Fortune #40 post, IOC is changing the rule like the ice cream flavor of the month. It is so clear the target is CHN for being so strong. As for match fixing, I agree and posted previously that is wrong, but given the priviledge, does anyone think MAS, KOR, INA would not do it? I can sell you some icefields in Canada to grow palm trees. Maybe DEN will play fair, I buy that.
    As for TT no matter how IOC reinvent the rule, from nuts size, banning super glue, open service, 21-to-11-to 7- and back to 11, banning pimples, CHN still kick butts. If CHN MS/WS competition for the 2-person spot is hard, I cannot imagine TT where the #1 WS can lose to much lower ranked compatriots, 0-4 score. That is insane.

  7. #75
    Moderator cobalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arrakis
    Posts
    8,664
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vixter View Post
    ---snip---

    Yeah I think it's a shame too, that so many good players/pairs miss out. They should make the draw twice as big. It's Olympics for god's sake.
    If they did that for all disciplines and games (and why not, eh?), the OG would take an entire season!

    There are obviously many other factors to be taken into account. BWF is also probably constrained by the limits on number of participants, as well as accounting for the most equitable spread of participation, country- and continent-wise.

    Besides, BWF needs to play by the OG committee rules. The Olympics is one of the biggest sources of revenue for not just badminton/BWF, but many other games/federations as well. Can't upset the money-bosses!

    It may not be the most ideal, or the most fair, or the most equitable solution, depending on your individual/national/principled point of view. Therefore, it is a compromise. Like almost everything in life, actually.

    Even terms of compromise will constantly evolve. I'd be one of the first to stand up and castigate BWF when they go wrong (often spectacularly wrong). But I'd also admit as quickly that I don't know all of the constraints, issues, guidelines and other considerations that go into making a policy decision, simply because I am not privy to all of the information or the thought processes that go into making those decisions.

    And so, much as I would like to, I will not criticize too loudly or long. I will wait for more information to come forth.

  8. #76
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,971
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneToughBirdie View Post
    If OLY rules stay as is, CHN could send 3 MS/WS to OLY16 and chances of all-CHN final is enhanced. With only 2 players qualified, probability reduce by 1/3. If this rule has been the norm all along, and some chinese kidos still stupidly wants to invest (more like sacrifice) their time pursuing this sport hoping to represent CHN in baddy, then power to that dumb kid. The point is to introduce this rule now mid-way to OLY16 is insanely unfair and blatantly clear to control CHN for having done such a darn good job bringing up a stable of world beaters that the ROW cannot compete.
    Agree with you that WSX again losing out. So, how does anyone who embrace this rule feels if he/she is WSX or DPY who trained their butts out and gotten screwed. Of course, 'anyone' or IOC does not give a flying care cos it is not them or their children who are affected. Admit it!
    As for TSB doing jumping jack and cheer leading this parade, better if the rule changes to 1-player only, that will enhance LCW winning gold and getting M$ bonus, TSB gets a share too.
    You yourself have given the answer to why BWF wanted to do good for badminton.

    If all china finals is that what you want, then no need to talk about your worry here. Everybody in this world like to be part of Olympics squad of their country to prove their talent and to widen the awareness of this sport in their locality. This definitely improves the viewership and indirectly creates awareness.

    You might have willingly concealed the truth behind your back of what happened in London . China can do all the tricks to get all the gold medals . This is one example which i wanted to mention here. No wonder you support your country. But truth is BWF has started to wake up from the sleep to give a true sport to the world without walkovers, mass retirement(that happened in one of the superseries tournaments), deliberate losing etc etc.

  9. #77
    Regular Member AlanY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,438
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vixter View Post
    Hans-Kristian Vittinghus why not?? He is the number 2 Dane. But these lists are not completely relevant anyway, since it's up to the national comittees which 2 players/pairs they want to send, am I right? It doesn't have to be the top 2, even though in most cases I guess it will be.

    Yeah I think it's a shame too, that so many good players/pairs miss out. They should make the draw twice as big. It's Olympics for god's sake.
    because one needed to be in the top16 (singles) and top8 (doubles) to be eligible as your nation's second.

    there are 27 single players in the top 32, and
    16 double pairs in the top 16 been ruled out for bwf to promote badminton.

    shouldn't this move to the jokes section!
    Last edited by AlanY; 02-27-2014 at 02:27 AM.

  10. #78
    Regular Member volcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    3,505
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bunch of clowns making hilarious decisions only to themselves while no one else is laughing.

  11. #79
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,189
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mindreader View Post
    First of all, other countries/continents ARE represented at the Olympics. Secondly, it's not the IOC that is limiting the entries. It's the BWF that's limiting the entries while as I mentioned, violating the Olympic motto, so let's not pretend that the IOC is circumventing its own rules. In additional, why should I have to justify the contradicting values of the Olympics (Citius, Altius, Fortius) vs. participation?
    Strange. BWF is no different from the other sports in limiting NOC representation. As previously mentioned in this thread, tennis has limits on numbers and so does judo and athletics.

    Quote Originally Posted by mindreader View Post
    Third, Canada had a crack at women's doubles in London. Did badminton take off after that? I must have missed all those Canadians showing up badminton gyms.
    Your sarcasm is noted. However, in common with detractors of a policy that is meant to increase exposure, you extrapolate the argument to "take off". Nobody claimed a "take off" - increasing exposure is merely a step towards increasing awareness to a bigger population. It doesn't mean a population shift. Nice attempt at trying put down the opposing argument but it didn't work

    Quote Originally Posted by mindreader View Post
    Lastly but most importantly, to claim continental participation would go up because what is in effect, an attempt to limit Chinese entries, is an outright lie. Those slots vacated by non-attending Chinese players is gonna go to a South African/Canada/Brazilian/whatever you claimed. It will go to a lower ranked Malaysian, Indonesian, South Korean and Dane, as in, countries already relatively strong on badminton.
    Some but not definitely. That would depend on the ranking of the various players (and injuries) at the end of the olympic qualification

    Quote Originally Posted by mindreader View Post
    You are referring to the 2004 Olympics. With all due respect to Lin Dan, in 2004 he was an inconsistent 20 year old player just out of juniors who quite frankly wasn't very good. Make no mistakes, the potential was there, but he wasn't named "First Round Dan" for nothing. As a matter of fact, he would remain inconsistent for another year or two until he learnt and, in my opinion, is the better player for it.

    Neither is Ronald Susilo nobody. He qualified for the Olympics on his own merit. As a matter of fact, he was the flag bearer for Singapore.
    Exactly, that shows your example of using Lin Dan as a sure win didn't cut much ice. Nobody is assured of sure win.

    Quote Originally Posted by pcll99 View Post
    For the 2012 London Olympics, BWF limited 2 pairs per nations. Did that make badminton grow?
    See above comment. And additionally, if you have knowledge on policy, if often takes a combination of factors to produce a desired effect and with policy, the incremental benefits might be small (e.g. education on smoking risk and cessation). Golf and tennis certainly didn't get to their stage overnight.
    Last edited by Cheung; 02-27-2014 at 05:13 AM.

  12. #80
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,189
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mindreader View Post
    Once again, all nations/continents ARE eligible for the Olympics. They all participate in the qualifiers and there is ZERO rule that preclude them from doing so.
    Excellent statement. Entirely agree, so that undermines phalanx trying to argue for racial discrimination in post #57

    Quote Originally Posted by mindreader View Post
    Here's a good examples of the debacle created by allowing non-qualified nations to participate. Comes just at the right time too:

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...iers?hpt=hp_t3
    Good article but they were not a non-qualified nation. As the article describes, the couple did qualify through proper channels. Just like Vanessa Mae (the violinist) qualifying representing Thailand. They followed the rules - it's up to IOC to have a look at their policies.
    Last edited by Cheung; 02-27-2014 at 05:20 AM.

  13. #81
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,189
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneToughBirdie View Post
    To introduce this 2-person max rule ahead of RIO (I call it making rule on the fly, clearly to contain CHN domination), when the players, say CHN MS, have been training all their lives preparing to play OLY16, but denied by this rule, is bordering on criminal.
    This rule basically destroys many players aspirations. For those who embrace and accept this rule, how do you feel if you are the third player affected by this rule when you train all your life for this moment, that you would have qualified in OLY12 but disqualified for OLY16 because you are too good for the ROW and some nuts introduced this rule without you seeing it coming.
    If the players know this rule is in place, and they still choose to invest their time playing this sport, so be it.
    I have to disagree. We are three years from Rio. If this rule was put in place just at the start of the Olympic qualification period or later, I would entirely agree with you. But everybody is given 3 years in advance notice and two years before the start of the olympic qualification. If you state the rules should not have been changed from the start, then badminton (which never used to be an Olympic sport) should not be in the Olympics.

    Those who train "all their life" for the Olympics - well, they could be injured as well. We all know the life of an athlete is subject to unexpected circumstances. 3 years notice can hardly be considered as unexpected.

  14. #82
    Regular Member AlanY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,438
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    with the clean-sweep of the London OLY, the new rule is tailored made to stop the embarrassment of this;

    Name:  images.jpg
Views: 104
Size:  10.8 KB

  15. #83
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,189
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think I will be repeating myself but I'd rather see more athletes being able to qualify which means increased numbers in the entry as the preferred solution. iirc, the 1992 Olympics qualification cutoff had many more athletes but the quota of athletes got reduced (with less than 3 years notice). Not sure why.

  16. #84
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,189
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanY View Post
    with the clean-sweep of the London OLY, the new rule is tailored made to stop the embarrassment of this;

    Name:  images.jpg
Views: 104
Size:  10.8 KB
    Nope, the disadvantage applies to all badminton NOCs.

    But I really wonder how it will affect the walkovers situation in the qualifying period - very intriguing.

  17. #85
    Regular Member AlanY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,438
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheung View Post
    Nope, the disadvantage applies to all badminton NOCs.

    But I really wonder how it will affect the walkovers situation in the qualifying period - very intriguing.
    right, may be you should get out of the cuckooland once for awhile.

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 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
  •