User Tag List

View Poll Results: Which scoring system do you prefer?

Voters
721. You may not vote on this poll
  • Old 15x3 service based scoring

    576 79.89%
  • New 21x3 rally based scoring

    145 20.11%
Page 16 of 50 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ... LastLast
Results 256 to 272 of 842
  1. #256
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Dipolog, Philippines
    Posts
    170
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    [QUOTE=CWB001]
    Quote Originally Posted by demolidor
    On the other hand since every point will be crucial it could be more exiting for the crowd.
    QUOTE]

    I fear you have accidentally hit the nail on the head
    lol. it may be 'exciting' for a time but just remember every game will always be the same - no variation. Comebacks will be none-existent. Audiences tend to get bored if there's no variety, now that would get them 'exiting'. hehehe

  2. #257
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Trinidad & Tobago / Calgary
    Posts
    1,579
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Post

    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.

  3. #258
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Espoo/Nummi-Pusula, Finland
    Posts
    26
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by demolidor
    Best comparison must be volleyball: score point, get serve.
    But only as far as scoring is concerned.

    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.

    Ari Husa

  4. #259
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  5. #260
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  6. #261
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    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.
    You really are infuriating Taneepak. You continue to deliver the IBF line which you seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. You even seem to believe in the democracy of the IBF. Or at least you believe that if you repeat it often enough people will believe it.



    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?
    • etc
    It all smacks of the seat-of-the-pants thinking that I fear is becoming commonplace in other areas of IBF’s work.

    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.

  7. #262
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    You really are infuriating Taneepak. You continue to deliver the IBF line which you seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. You even seem to believe in the democracy of the IBF. Or at least you believe that if you repeat it often enough people will believe it.



    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?
    • etc
    It all smacks of the seat-of-the-pants thinking that I fear is becoming commonplace in other areas of IBF’s work.

    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?
    Well, if Neil Cameron and you are so sure you are both right then the coming crucial vote on the new scoring system should be a resounding no. In that case why are you so upset about this going to a vote? The same thing happened to the 7 points experimental system. It was given a trial and then given the thumbs down. If you are right, this new 21 points system should have utterly no chance of being adopted. If so, so be it. There is such a thing as due process.
    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.

  8. #263
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Well, if Neil Cameron and you are so sure you are both right then the coming crucial vote on the new scoring system should be a resounding no. In that case why are you so upset about this going to a vote? The same thing happened to the 7 points experimental system. It was given a trial and then given the thumbs down. If you are right, this new 21 points system should have utterly no chance of being adopted. If so, so be it. There is such a thing as due process.
    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.
    And once again you ignore those questions.

  9. #264
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    And once again you ignore those questions.
    There are a thousand and one questions, some relevant and others delaying tactics from people who disagree, but a decision has been made, presumedly in accordance with the laws of the IBF, for trying out a new scoring system. Now, what is wrong with that? Does the IBF have to answer all your questions or for that matter Neil Cameron's for this? You are free to have your own opinions. You are also free to take out a restraining order against the IBF for not answering all your questions or for not consulting you before making the decision to try out the new system. Your questions to me are misdirected. You should direct your questions to whoever can save you the day. As a matter of fact there is a precedent for taking the IBF to the courts some time back.
    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?

  10. #265
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    There are a thousand and one questions, some relevant and others delaying tactics from people who disagree, but a decision has been made, presumedly in accordance with the laws of the IBF, for trying out a new scoring system. Now, what is wrong with that? Does the IBF have to answer all your questions or for that matter Neil Cameron's for this? You are free to have your own opinions. You are also free to take out a restraining order against the IBF for not answering all your questions or for not consulting you before making the decision to try out the new system. Your questions to me are misdirected. You should direct your questions to whoever can save you the day. As a matter of fact there is a precedent for taking the IBF to the courts some time back.
    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?
    Well, that is the point of the questions, isn't it.

    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?

  11. #266
    Regular Member Bbn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,004
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default -

    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?

  12. #267
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    Well, that is the point of the questions, isn't it.

    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?
    I think you misunderstand how things in real life works. The IBF is a legal entity and is operated like a corporation, with shareholders (votes from all the confederations of the 5 zones), board of directors (IBF council), and managerial staff. The decision to try out the new system was the board's (council's) decision alone and nobody else. Neil Cameron was the head of the managerial staff but not a director (council member) and should have no say or vote in the council's decision.
    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?

  13. #268
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    I think you misunderstand how things in real life works. The IBF is a legal entity and is operated like a corporation, with shareholders (votes from all the confederations of the 5 zones), board of directors (IBF council), and managerial staff. The decision to try out the new system was the board's (council's) decision alone and nobody else. Neil Cameron was the head of the managerial staff but not a director (council member) and should have no say or vote in the council's decision.
    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?
    Patronising, or what? The consistent over-use of does not help, of course. I do have some experience of real life, you know.

    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?

  14. #269
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    Patronising, or what? The consistent over-use of does not help, of course. I do have some experience of real life, you know.

    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?
    Come, come, you are getting a bit off track by challenging me on a subject that has nothing to do with me. The IBF council is a duly elected council and they have the power to make a decision about trying out a new scoring system for a certain period. They have also wisely passed the decision to implement or not to implement the new scoring system to the shareholders (member confederation countries). It is not for you or anybody else, including Neil Cameron, to meddle in their affairs. You are implying or explicitly saying the IBF council members are useless. You also seem to believe that I am Mr IBF. Am I seeing things? However, these are your opinions, and much as I disagree, at least you have your say.

  15. #270
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Come, come, you are getting a bit off track by challenging me on a subject that has nothing to do with me. The IBF council is a duly elected council and they have the power to make a decision about trying out a new scoring system for a certain period. They have also wisely passed the decision to implement or not to implement the new scoring system to the shareholders (member confederation countries). It is not for you or anybody else, including Neil Cameron, to meddle in their affairs. You are implying or explicitly saying the IBF council members are useless. You also seem to believe that I am Mr IBF. Am I seeing things? However, these are your opinions, and much as I disagree, at least you have your say.
    But my questions are do to with you. I am asking you why you are confident that a decision can be made (by anyone) when some basic management principles and methods have not been followed (such as defining the success criteria for the trial).

    You are correct in one thing. I did call you Punches poodle because you seem to blindly follow whatever they say.

  16. #271
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    But my questions are do to with you. I am asking you why you are confident that a decision can be made (by anyone) when some basic management principles and methods have not been followed (such as defining the success criteria for the trial).

    You are correct in one thing. I did call you Punches poodle because you seem to blindly follow whatever they say.
    I think you are confused about management principles and decision. A decision is made after due considerations by the concerned parties. Whether the management style used in reaching that decision complies with your version of good management practice is not the point. One man's meat is another man's poison. What is good management practce to the IBF may be rubbish to you. But can anyone imagine you taking charge?
    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.

  17. #272
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak


    A decision is made after due considerations by the concerned parties.
    I agree. And part of the due consideration is to know how you are going to judge the success of a trial.


    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    But can anyone imagine you taking charge?
    Now, who did you say was getting personal?

Page 16 of 50 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. I vote for 15 point rally system for Olympics and other majors
    By maximR in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 5
    : 01-20-2011, 05:36 PM
  2. A Year Later: Let's vote on the New/Old Scoring System again.
    By kwun in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 513
    : 03-01-2009, 09:49 PM
  3. New Scoring System (21-Rally point system)
    By MikeJ in forum Jonas Rasmussen Forum
    Replies: 21
    : 06-05-2006, 07:03 AM
  4. new 7 point system??
    By wong in forum General Forum
    Replies: 7
    : 04-26-2006, 11:34 PM
  5. WS Point System for SO '05
    By cheongsa in forum Singapore Open 2005 / Malaysia Open 2005
    Replies: 1
    : 06-29-2005, 08:01 AM

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
  •