User Tag List

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 86 to 102 of 204
  1. #86
    Regular Member AlanY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,568
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheung View Post
    Nope, the disadvantage applies to all badminton NOCs.
    name me any country except China is likely to achieve that (1-2-3) in any of 5 discrepancies in 2016 without the max of 2 restriction.
    Last edited by AlanY; 02-27-2014 at 07:00 AM.

  2. #87
    Regular Member volcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    3,596
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanY View Post
    name me any country except China is likely to achieve that (1-2-3) in any of 5 discrepancies in 2016 without the max of 2 restriction.
    Don't think I can think of any

  3. #88
    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 scorpion1 View Post
    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.
    As you say 'You yourself have given the answer to why BWF wanted to do good for badminton', so you agree this BWF move is to control CHN domination of this sport. If CHN or any country in any sport can sweep the medals, power to CHN or that country to be able to do that.
    Only thingie I agree with you is the 2-player limit will resolve walk-over or match-fixing.
    As you say ' You might have willingly concealed the truth behind your back of what happened in London', you must be sleeping and not read my previous posts. I am one of the most vocal forumers against match-fixing and walk-overs.
    As for 'No wonder you support your country', dude, I am not from CHN, never been there. I am an ex-malaysian, still all my siblings, mom and my wife's bro-sis are still there. However, I will be making my first trip to CHN this year or next on the way home to MAS.
    If you are playing for IND and you are the 3rd player affected by this rule, I bet you will not be so supportive of this rule, you will be swearing and crying in Hindi...why...why...why...why me, I train my butt for this and got screwed royally

  4. #89
    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 Cheung View Post
    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.
    The first part I see your point but still, with this rule set for RIO qualification, this affect the current batch of players and I don't think that is fair. For e.g. WSX would again be out, this time not for being the 4th best player but KO by this rule.
    On 'everybody is given 3 years in advance', that 'everybody' is CHN, which other country would by affected? MAS's TSB doing cart-wheel in support of this rule.
    If this rule for RIO is announced at the qualification stage of London OLY, that IMO is fair. But after London OLY with CHN sweeping so many medals, it does smell.
    As for 'those who train all their life for OLY could get injured', I agree anyone can get injured, even LCW almost could not make it, but really, the possibility of CHN MS/WS team KO by injury is remote.

  5. #90
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    364
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Some seem to think that this rule change would increase viewership and awareness of badminton, and I assume that you'd agree that this would hold for all sports?

    Ask yourself, when was the last time you watched a sport that you don't play or follow on a regular basis purely because your country is represented? Let me extend that further by saying that you're vaguely aware that your nation's team isn't exactly what one would call world class, up against a clearly superior team that is going to wipe the floor with them. This is what the non-badminton crowd is going to be asking themselves.

    Conversely, would you not be more willing to watch a sport where the best compete against each other? Would you rather watch the 100m final with the likes of Usain Bolt, Tyson Gay, and Yohan Blake or a heat with an athlete from your country that you've never heard of? I daresay that for the majority of the people watching the Olympics, an impressive performance holds more weight than representation by someone who lost in the first round. (And before someone brings up the performance of Kevin Cordon as a counterexample, yes he played well and fully deserved the win. But it was one out of hundreds of matches. Statistically speaking, I don't believe it is worth denying a WR3/4 a place for that 0.01 chance.)

    And when it comes to the badminton fans, you may say that you wouldn't watch a all-(Country) match. Youtube numbers don't agree with that. Check out the views on LD vs CL's QF in the last WC, for example. It is significantly higher than all the other QFs and more than half the SFs. What would increase views you ask? I'd say let the best compete.

  6. #91
    Regular Member AlanY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,568
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 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;

    Attachment 156097
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheung View Post
    Nope, the disadvantage applies to all badminton NOCs.
    you do realise that the max of 2 pairs in doubles was after this;

    Name:  Untitled.jpg
Views: 97
Size:  47.7 KB

    and when the singles were getting closer and closer;

    Name:  Untitled1.jpg
Views: 98
Size:  24.3 KB

    Name:  Untitled2.jpg
Views: 97
Size:  47.7 KB

    bwf wouldn't afford to risk it.

  7. #92
    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 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.
    Regardless of whether this rule is intended to control CHN domination or intended to be fair play to promote OLY ideals or what-nots, this rule will resolve WO should there be 3 CHN players in SF and no sweep by CHN. WO and match-fixing in SS and OLY12 are despicable, it is a slap to the fans and those who pay good money to watch live. But if a country can sweep the medals in any sport, power to that country for doing a great job. Why introduce rule to control that country as the ROW simply is not good enough and cannot compete?

  8. #93
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    5,512
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneToughBirdie View Post
    As you say 'You yourself have given the answer to why BWF wanted to do good for badminton', so you agree this BWF move is to control CHN domination of this sport. If CHN or any country in any sport can sweep the medals, power to CHN or that country to be able to do that.
    Only thingie I agree with you is the 2-player limit will resolve walk-over or match-fixing.
    As you say ' You might have willingly concealed the truth behind your back of what happened in London', you must be sleeping and not read my previous posts. I am one of the most vocal forumers against match-fixing and walk-overs.
    As for 'No wonder you support your country', dude, I am not from CHN, never been there. I am an ex-malaysian, still all my siblings, mom and my wife's bro-sis are still there. However, I will be making my first trip to CHN this year or next on the way home to MAS.
    If you are playing for IND and you are the 3rd player affected by this rule, I bet you will not be so supportive of this rule, you will be swearing and crying in Hindi...why...why...why...why me, I train my butt for this and got screwed royally
    Ha ha.. Here Nobody cried in "hindi" as you mentioned. Sorry to say this.. I can write hindi but can't speak.. You are only the one who is keep on crying in this thread , may be in "malay/mandarin(whatever you call )" about something what you said in your post ".why...why...why...why me, I train my butt for this and got screwed royally". Just redirecting .. I liked the "if" in your sentence..

    As you said, 2 players are enough for a country to prove it.. More than 2 players will automatically attract many malpractices from certain countries in order to pave way for their support.
    Last edited by scorpion1; 02-27-2014 at 09:03 AM.

  9. #94
    Regular Member AlanY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,568
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    all the talks about bwf to promote badminton to a wider audience are just rubbish.

    they have limited the doubles to 16 pairs only, how elite is that? and that included the free spaces reserved for the host, confederation representatives etc.

  10. #95
    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 AlanY View Post
    all the talks about bwf to promote badminton to a wider audience are just rubbish.
    Concur. The best should play, period.
    I was watching TT in one WC, there will 7 WS from CHN and only Feng from Singapore in the QF. In the SF, it was all CHN. There is no way I can predict who will win in the SF or the final, the gap between these CHN girls is too close to call. All these games end in 6 or 7 sets. That is the excitement for TT fans and I am one of the diehards, watching every single match and following ITTF.
    BWF is helpless to resolve match-fixing and WO, it is not in the regulations and how the heck to prove that? LYB with an arsenal of players have been playing this card for so long, and it does not help that he famously admitted that to the media. This 2-person limit rule, if it is intended to solve match fixing and WO, and control CHN domination, well that will fix it for OLY.
    In WC05, Sigit/Chandra were playing the African players in R1 (I wonder if any forumers watched this match live). The Africans were scared like seeing ghost serving to Sigit. Sigit IMO must have the highest reflex action among players. The service crossed the net and whack! Sigit smashed the bird right into the chap's head. We laughed so hard and got our money's worth. So, if this rule opens up participation from weak nations, one bright side to this rule, is we get to see comedy in action or yawn falling asleep.
    But to say this rule is to promote baddy to a wider audience, I totally agree with you 'it is simply rubbish'. We can just check U-Tube and note the viewers' count on matches between top ranked players even from the same country and games featuring mismatched players.

  11. #96
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    5,512
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneToughBirdie View Post
    Concur. The best should play, period.
    I was watching TT in one WC, there will 7 WS from CHN and only Feng from Singapore in the QF. In the SF, it was all CHN. There is no way I can predict who will win in the SF or the final, the gap between these CHN girls is too close to call. All these games end in 6 or 7 sets. That is the excitement for TT fans and I am one of the diehards, watching every single match and following ITTF.
    BWF is helpless to resolve match-fixing and WO, it is not in the regulations and how the heck to prove that? LYB with an arsenal of players have been playing this card for so long, and it does not help that he famously admitted that to the media. This 2-person limit rule, if it is intended to solve match fixing and WO, and control CHN domination, well that will fix it for OLY.
    In WC05, Sigit/Chandra were playing the African players in R1 (I wonder if any forumers watched this match live). The Africans were scared like seeing ghost serving to Sigit. Sigit IMO must have the highest reflex action among players. The service crossed the net and whack! Sigit smashed the bird right into the chap's head. We laughed so hard and got our money's worth. So, if this rule opens up participation from weak nations, one bright side to this rule, is we get to see comedy in action or yawn falling asleep.
    But to say this rule is to promote baddy to a wider audience, I totally agree with you 'it is simply rubbish'. We can just check U-Tube and note the viewers' count on matches between top ranked players even from the same country and games featuring mismatched players.

    Do you really think that only Africa is there in the world?? I came to know about Niluka karunaratne of srilanka only when he played brilliantly in London olympics 2012.

    Except power houses like China, Malaysia, Korea, Japan etc, how many countries are having good players in all the 5 disciplines ?? .

    Kashyap was the first male player from india to reach quarters in olympics. After that, a series of Men's singles players emerged in india. Saina was the first player to get a medal in olympics. Similarly Russian pair won bronze i think. After that, we are able to see so many good players from Russia. Even before olympics, Vladimir Ivanov was there. How many of us know him??. Now, he is playing very well. we can add so many examples.

    Definitely, it will improve badminton all over the world. Kudos to BWF !!! They have given us some of incredible rules by which we can control chinese players from deliberately losing and giving walkovers which are much more laughable and disgusting to this sport than what you have mentioned in your post (the incident about an african player. Here, atleast he was able to represent his country and trying his level best to play without deliberate losing ).

  12. #97
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    60
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheung View Post
    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.
    First, to start, I'm not necessarily against the idea of a quota system. If everyone is allowed to participate then the event become unwieldy, if not outright impossible.

    But your spin is that this is a quota issue. It's not. It is a clearly and obvious attempt to target a certain nation (China being the current case). Or to use the cliche, "targeting success." If it's only a quota issue, why was 3 in top 8 acceptable 10 years ago but not now? Why was 3 in top 4 acceptable but not now? Seems like a better way to increase participation is by increasing the size of the tournament marginally, which allows most of the best to be there as well.

    So let's at least go with a little honesty and call a spade a spade instead of "quota" issue.

    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
    So did exposure increase in Canada? Where was the measurable result that showed increased exposure. You still can't find badminton reported even on sports sites, let alone broadcasted. Believe it or not, I can't argue with a stat that doesn't exist.

    Some but not definitely. That would depend on the ranking of the various players (and injuries) at the end of the olympic qualification
    The CURRENT qualifications standards would be subject to the exact same rule. As in, also depending on injuries and ranking. You didn't answer my question. How many players outside of those already strong countries would benefit from this rule? At the margins at best.

    Exactly, that shows your example of using Lin Dan as a sure win didn't cut much ice. Nobody is assured of sure win.
    Are you kidding me? You just compared 20 year old Lin Dan out of juniors playing a comparable level of player against a four time WC 2 time defending Olympic Champion playing a nobody who shouldn't be there. No, he's not assured of a win, but 999 times out of 1000 he will. And it will be a thrashing. So your argument for allowing said nobody to be there is to play at the margin just for the purely mathematical chance (however slim) that he MAY beat Lin Dan?

    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.
    There were YEARS if not DECADES of data that backed the claim that limiting smoking reduces health risks. Was there similar stats that show limiting the best players increases the popularity of badminton? As I mentioned, I can't argue with stats that don't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheung View Post
    Excellent statement. Entirely agree, so that undermines phalanx trying to argue for racial discrimination in post #57
    So the current regime already handles your participation concerns but you want to change it regardless?

    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.
    Considering the Dominica Ski Association didn't even exist before the couples paid an, ahem, bribe, I guess the broken face and mystery illness is payback.

  13. #98
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    60
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scorpion1 View Post
    Do you really think that only Africa is there in the world?? I came to know about Niluka karunaratne of srilanka only when he played brilliantly in London olympics 2012.

    Except power houses like China, Malaysia, Korea, Japan etc, how many countries are having good players in all the 5 disciplines ?? .

    Kashyap was the first male player from india to reach quarters in olympics. After that, a series of Men's singles players emerged in india. Saina was the first player to get a medal in olympics. Similarly Russian pair won bronze i think. After that, we are able to see so many good players from Russia. Even before olympics, Vladimir Ivanov was there. How many of us know him??. Now, he is playing very well. we can add so many examples.

    Definitely, it will improve badminton all over the world. Kudos to BWF !!! They have given us some of incredible rules by which we can control chinese players from deliberately losing and giving walkovers which are much more laughable and disgusting to this sport than what you have mentioned in your post (the incident about an african player. Here, atleast he was able to represent his country and trying his level best to play without deliberate losing ).
    Considering the IOC only recently reinstated the Indian Olympic Committee, I wouldn't exactly get on my high horse about honesty and fair play.

  14. #99
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    4,219
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Which one of these players do you think should not have played in the London Olympics 2012? WYH, WX or LXR?

  15. #100
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    5,512
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mindreader View Post
    Considering the IOC only recently reinstated the Indian Olympic Committee, I wouldn't exactly get on my high horse about honesty and fair play.
    This is one of the blunt and stupid comparison i have ever seen.. Lol. IOC did not accept the political involvement in the selection committee. This is totally irrelevant and unmatchable comparison to the "fair" play which i mentioned. Something which you totally concealed for your sake.. Even without IOC , indian players can play badminton. But what about the disqualification of chinese players for their ....?? . Full soverignty of the sport is in question !!!! Great comparison dude. ...
    Last edited by scorpion1; 02-27-2014 at 12:50 PM.

  16. #101
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Citizen of The World
    Posts
    17,056
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 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;

    Attachment 156097
    Spot on,mate,your message hits home.

    Needless to say, the new quota ruling punishes CHN and no one else, for which other nation is capable of having three players/pairs in the top 4 in any of the five disciplines so far. BWF/IOC is doing to Chinese badminton what they did to Chinese table-tennis, simply and purely to ensure the ROW is guaranteed a chance to medal, at the very least a bronze, to put it bluntly.

    By reducing the quota from 3 to 2 , it absolutely disadvantages CHN as it introduces more uncertainty, increases the effect of unforeseen circumstances(injury,personal problem), heightens the negative impact on morale affecting the likely 3rd-ranked player/pair (poor WSX who immediately comes to mind, and others who are striving to be the 3rd best in world ranking), apart from the obvious,immediate intention to curtail CHN's chances of winning a medal of any colour by roughly 1/3.

    Whilst IOC's proclaimed principle, that participation in the Olympics is everything, winning is not, is admirable and deserves our support and understanding but BWF by implementing the maximum 2 per nation quota ruling is as good as pronouncing that winning a medal is everything; in other words, BWF, or IOC for that matter, has made a confusion between participation and medalling.

    Apparently, this new ruling has little or nothing to do with promoting and popularizing the sport, and certainly even less to do with fairness - to whom? The weaker sporting nations at the expense of the dominant one(s), who else? - For what, winning a medal? Of course. Doesn't it run counter towards achieving the Olympic motto - Citius,Altius,Fitius (Higher,Faster,Stronger) when some of the very best athletes are deprived of their right to compete solely based on their nationality? The WR#3 or #4 may well turn out to be the best of the best - LXR is a case in point at LOG'12.

    Honestly speaking, I actually saw it coming after the London Olympics when I am reminded of what IOC did to CHN in table-tennis after what happened at the Beijing 2008 Olympics where CHN completed a clean sweep of every medal on offer in both the Men's and Women's team and individual events.

    As a matter of fact, there is nothing CBA/LYB can do about it now but to accept it,live with it and move on. Again,one more example of how hard it is to be one of the top CHN players.

  17. #102
    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 pcll99 View Post
    Which one of these players do you think should not have played in the London Olympics 2012? WYH, WX or LXR?
    All of them 'out' so other nations can medal to spread the gospel of promoting baddy world-wide...soooory for being sarcastic.

Page 6 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
  •