View Poll Results: Which scoring system do you prefer?
- 721. You may not vote on this poll
Old 15x3 service based scoring
New 21x3 rally based scoring
02-05-2006, 08:28 PM #256
[QUOTE=CWB001]Originally Posted by demolidor
02-05-2006, 08:38 PM #257
personally i like the older point system cause like everybody has been saying theres more varity and theres the chance for comebacks, whats more intense than a match at 16-16 where the service has gone back many times and just watching each side go all out trying to win it...ok so that happened to me and my partner in doubles and it was great the 21 rally point system it would have been over long ago and without the excitement. So im all for the origional 15x3 point system and NOT the 21x3 rally point system.
02-06-2006, 05:29 PM #258Originally Posted by demolidor
I am surprised how many times people compare volleyball to badminton. The relation between the serving and receiving sides is completely different.
In volleyball, the receiving side is a huge favourite to win the ball since they get to spike their attack first. The serving side tries to counteract this, of course, by making the serve as difficult as possible - even by risking serving out or to the net. The advantage of the receiving side used to be so big that changing serves was a rule, and a point scored was an exception - especially before the jump serve was introduced in the 1980's.
Not so in badminton, where there is no such huge advantage on either side. The service changes are generally due to an even and exciting, fighting game, not really related to the serve/receive situation itself.
02-06-2006, 10:22 PM #259
To some the badminton serve may not look like giving the server an advantage. The serve in badminton, both singles and doubles, is an advantage. Unlike in the old days the singles short serve today is an 'attacking' opening gambit, forcing the receiver into lifting or netting, so that the server can attack with a smash or a net kill. In doubles the short serve is a 'weapon' of choice to mount an attack. An attack does not mean an instant kill like in a tennis serve.
02-06-2006, 10:35 PM #260
The new scoring system will be used in all IBF tournaments carrying world ranking points from Feb. this year. It will also be used for both the Thomas Cup and Uber Cup. After 4 months of a trial period, the IBF will convene an AGM to vote on whether to reject or accept the new scoring system. I am sure all the five continental zones and their national federations will be fairly represented, and if not, at least more fairly represented than in the old days when the real badminton powers were sidelined.
Whatever is decided should be accepted by all with grace, even by countries that were strongly for or against the motion. If not, there is a danger the IBF may go back to the divided badminton world of the late 1970s and early 1980s. This is not the way to end up with if badminton is aspiring to be the no. 1 racquet game or even to stay in the Olympics.
02-07-2006, 01:47 AM #261Originally Posted by taneepak
Take a look at what Neil Cameron, chief executive of the IBF for five years from 1998 has said:
"I am concerned with what the IBF are currently suggesting, primarily because I believe they haven’t approached the issue in a well thought out and structured way, eg:
- what’s the purpose of the IBF’s planned changes? There is very little information available on this
- where’s the analysis backing up their proposals? ie what benefits are foreseen for the systems to be used?
- what’s the full plan to implement any new system? and does the plan comply with the IBF’s own Rules?
- has IBF consulted widely with the National Associations on the experimental systems?
- how will IBF evaluate the success or otherwise of any new system?
He is asking some of the questions I have been asking you, and believes they are acting outside the rules. But you continue to ignore them, presumably because they are too embarrassing to contemplate. Will you answer them now?
Last edited by CWB001; 02-07-2006 at 02:02 AM.
02-07-2006, 03:07 AM #262Originally Posted by CWB001
If Neil Cameron really believes in what he says about the IBF acting outside the rules, surely he knows what to do? Can't he stop it, either through the courts or in the AGM? I say let the votes decide. You can scream or curse but these will count for nothing. Or do you have a nagging feeling that the vote will turn out differently?
Whether the vote turns out to be yes or no, it is a damn good decision, because for the first time in IBF's history today's voting system is fairer than ever before.
02-07-2006, 03:09 AM #263Originally Posted by taneepak
02-07-2006, 03:34 AM #264Originally Posted by CWB001
Right now, the reality is that the trial period is on. A vote will be taken later. Either way the vote goes, let us accept it. I have no problem accepting the decision. But can you, if I may ask?
02-07-2006, 03:46 AM #265Originally Posted by taneepak
A properly set up trial, with clear and published success criteria, intelligently analysed and reported, would be a solid basis for such a law change and I would be content with a democratic vote on the issue.
I would not be happy for a dishonest vote, taken on the basis of a poorly conducted trial and where the evasiveness of the people involved leads one to believe that a stitch-up is being conducted.
The answers to these questions are fundamental in giving the badminton public confidence in what is going on.
Why are you so confident in a vote when you don't have the answers to these questions? Why do you believe that the trial is a fair one, for instance, when you don't know what the success criteria for the trial are?
02-07-2006, 04:00 AM #266
Why not give things a chance?
Do we need a referendum for everything ?
Were all thiese stuffy measures put in place in 2002
when Europeans demanded the 7 point system ?
The world is full of stories of people who dared to take a chance.
Is failure the end of the world?
02-07-2006, 04:25 AM #267Originally Posted by CWB001
The IBF council members (board of directors) who decided on the new system trial period comprise members from Korea, Thailand, Austria, Scotland, Malaysia, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Japan, Sweden, Indonesia, Nigeria, USA, Peru, Singapore, China, India, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Greece, Kenya, Mauritius, Bulgaria, and Germany.
The 'shareholders' (member confederation countries) voted and appointed the board of directors (council members) to run the business. Just because you believe the council should consult you and answer your thousand and one questions, in order to do a proper job, doesn't mean they will. Come on, do you think the board of directors have to consult their shareholders, employees, their customers, government, or the public in their board deliberations? The world will come to a standstill if they were to do that.
What you can do is to overthrow the board (council) and then appoint your slate of council members who will do what you command. You think you can do that? This is what you are knocking your head against. This is democracy at work, no?
02-07-2006, 04:49 AM #268Originally Posted by taneepak
You have to get away from all this idealistic voting stuff and think about the problem and practical solutions to it ... in the real world.
If the management were held to be competent I would say that democracy is not a suitable means to getting the right decision among so many politically-motivated people.
You really ought to focus on the fact that the IBF is running a business. Buiness are not run on particularly democratice principles on a day-to-day basis. They are run by management teams.
This business wants to make its product more popular. Any competent business management, if contemplating major changes to its products, will first determine (and record) why the changes are necessary.
Next, any plan or trial (as in this case) formulated will have success criteria set down so that it can be reviewed in the light of what actually happens. If you know (and have defined) what constitutes success (or what the acceptance criteria are) you can make a fairly simple decision about whether you have achieved that success, or whether an alternative strategy should be followed.
The IBF is singularly failing to adopt such methods, leading to the inevitable conclusions that (a) they are not competent to manage their business or (b) they have not thought out what constitutes success in the trial or (c) they just want to bulldoze a major change through and are so nervous of its acceptability that they wish to keep away from the clarity that is required by adopting evasive methods.
Or all of the above.
I am not challenging the IBF (directly). I am sitting on the sidelines and commenting (like everyone else here).
I am challenging you directly when I ask why you are so confident in the decision when such basic aids to business management, decision-making and transparency have not been implemented. You have still not addressed those questions. Why are you so evasive?
02-07-2006, 05:10 AM #269Originally Posted by CWB001
02-07-2006, 05:16 AM #270Originally Posted by taneepak
You are correct in one thing. I did call you Punches poodle because you seem to blindly follow whatever they say.
02-07-2006, 05:40 AM #271Originally Posted by CWB001
Yes, I am confident that a decision will be made after the trial period. And why shouldn't a decision be made? Surely you are not going to stop them? I do not question the competence of the IBF council to decide on trying out the new scoring system nor do I question the competence of the AGM (shareholders) vote when the time comes for the final decision. But you relish in rubbishing them. I wonder why?
No, I do not blindly follow whatever the IBF says. You are getting a bit derailed by being a bit personal. I think I will take a 'rain check' now and wait for calmer weather.
02-07-2006, 06:52 AM #272Originally Posted by taneepak
Originally Posted by taneepak
By maximR in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 5: 01-20-2011, 05:36 PM
By kwun in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / OfficiatingReplies: 513: 03-01-2009, 09:49 PM
By MikeJ in forum Jonas Rasmussen ForumReplies: 21: 06-05-2006, 07:03 AM
By wong in forum General ForumReplies: 7: 04-26-2006, 11:34 PM
By cheongsa in forum Singapore Open 2005 / Malaysia Open 2005Replies: 1: 06-29-2005, 08:01 AM