User Tag List

Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LastLast
Results 239 to 255 of 340
  1. #239
    Regular Member DinkAlot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dcbadminton.net
    Posts
    12,158
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kanive
    TV deals contribute a lot, but they don't pay the salaries of a Manny Ramirez or a Phony Damon (yes, I am bitter! )
    Don't hate. The Yankees offered Johnny Damon $12 Million more than the BoSox would offer him. If I or any other person in their right mind were in that position, we'd do it too and you should too. You may talk about going over to the "enemy", but for Damon it's just a business, his livelihood. If the BoSox were competitive with their offer, maybe Damon would have reconsidered; but a $12 million difference? There's nothing much to consider.

    And yes, I'm a Red Sox fan. Live in Framingham for 2.5 years pursuing my MBA in Boston. Gooo Pats!

  2. #240
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lymm, United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,287
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    Er, no. Rally point scoring means that all rallies move the score along, regardless of who is serving or whether it is singles or doubles. The serve changes hands if the non-server wins the rally as well.

    The fundamental problem with the IBF trial system is just that - rally point scoring. The matches are too short and the play is more defensive (and therefore of even less interest to the TV people).

    Why do they not just allow breaks for televised matches to the current scoring format? Hey presto! everyone is happy.
    not sure if you missed the point here. think about it this way.

    it's 5-all.. your opponent is serving.. you win the rally, now it's 5-6 and your serve.. if you don't win the next rally too you end up back at 6-6. the equivalent in the old system would result in the score being 5-5 instead of 6-6.. yes 21 points isn't really enough and i'd like to see it made to 25 or maybe even 31, but it's a fine balance between entire tournaments being lengthened by whitewash matches that take too long and games being too short to be interesting

    i see two options if we keep with rally scoring.. (which i would guess the IBF will do since it makes ad break opportunities marginally more predictable without having to resort to timeslip technology (which btw i think is a much simpler less upsetting solution))
    1 - increase the score to 25 / 31 and have deuce points up to 35 / 40
    2 - stick with 21 but have an endless tiebreak on the deciding set..

    Coops

  3. #241
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,989
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cooler
    unfortunately, ibf is leaning toward on sacrificing ticket buyers for suppose to be more tv audience.
    Probably.. But I think TV audience numbers and ticket-buyers is likely to be linked.. So It is likely to assume Less TV-audience as well if ticket-sales are poor...

    /Twobeer

  4. #242
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,989
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coops241180
    not sure if you missed the point here. think about it this way.

    it's 5-all.. your opponent is serving.. you win the rally, now it's 5-6 and your serve.. if you don't win the next rally too you end up back at 6-6. the equivalent in the old system would result in the score being 5-5 instead of 6-6.. yes 21 points isn't really enough and i'd like to see it made to 25 or maybe even 31, but it's a fine balance between entire tournaments being lengthened by whitewash matches that take too long and games being too short to be interesting

    i see two options if we keep with rally scoring.. (which i would guess the IBF will do since it makes ad break opportunities marginally more predictable without having to resort to timeslip technology (which btw i think is a much simpler less upsetting solution))
    1 - increase the score to 25 / 31 and have deuce points up to 35 / 40
    2 - stick with 21 but have an endless tiebreak on the deciding set..

    Coops
    But if We use say 3x31.. I think an uneven matches will be prolonged uneccesary.. Even with 3x21 a totally dominant player would ned 42 rallies to win agains a "bad" player..And with 3X31 it would be 62!! Prolonging an uneven game does certainly not make it more interesting.. On the other end of the spectrum it is the even games.. That gets shortend by rally scoring... I don't see any logic behinf making uneven games longer and even games shorter.. Therefore I think Rally Scoring is "pure evil"

    /Twobeer

  5. #243
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    63
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DinkAlot
    Don't hate. The Yankees offered Johnny Damon $12 Million more than the BoSox would offer him. If I or any other person in their right mind were in that position, we'd do it too and you should too. You may talk about going over to the "enemy", but for Damon it's just a business, his livelihood. If the BoSox were competitive with their offer, maybe Damon would have reconsidered; but a $12 million difference? There's nothing much to consider.
    No kidding. Reports coming out now say that the Sawx thought he had a 5 year deal with somebody else, and were completely surprised it was a 4 year deal with the Yankees. If he had even said one word that the Yankees were offering $52M for 4 years, I bet they would have matched the offer in a jiffy.

    Quote Originally Posted by DinkAlot
    And yes, I'm a Red Sox fan. Live in Framingham for 2.5 years pursuing my MBA in Boston. Gooo Pats!
    Amen to that!

    But getting back on topic, I found this link to an old USA Today list that estimates the revenues for all major league baseball teams.. don't know how to make a link here, but here is the URL:
    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...s-expenses.htm

    The point being, TV deals look good in newspaper reports, but the lifeline of the sport is in putting butts into seats.

    I am curious .. how much did the IBF earn from the World Championships at Anaheim? How much from ticket sales, and how much from TV deals?

  6. #244
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It may not strike you as strange to learn that the old badminton scoring system is actually 4 different scoring systems? The new scoring system uses the same scoring system for MS, MD, MX, WS, and WD. One standard is better than 4 standards, especially for newcomers to badminton.
    Now doesn't this make more sense?

  7. #245
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    It may not strike you as strange to learn that the old badminton scoring system is actually 4 different scoring systems? The new scoring system uses the same scoring system for MS, MD, MX, WS, and WD. One standard is better than 4 standards, especially for newcomers to badminton.
    Now doesn't this make more sense?
    Four different systems? If you are going to nit-pick that the number of points played constitutes a significant change to the system then I can see 3 systems here. But then I'd nit-pick that singles is always different from doubles because two players are sharing the serving and the court is different, so its 2 (trial) vs 3 (existing) systems really.

    And playing to 11 is not actually a significant difference in terms of complexity and ease of understanding, is it?

    That is also true in tennis, of course. Except that tennis has different numbers of sets according to the tournament, and different tie-break systems - so maybe changing the scoring system is not the golden bullet after all.

    How do the scoring methods for MD, MX and WD differ from one another?

  8. #246
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    Four different systems? If you are going to nit-pick that the number of points played constitutes a significant change to the system then I can see 3 systems here. But then I'd nit-pick that singles is always different from doubles because two players are sharing the serving and the court is different, so its 2 (trial) vs 3 (existing) systems really.

    And playing to 11 is not actually a significant difference in terms of complexity and ease of understanding, is it?

    That is also true in tennis, of course. Except that tennis has different numbers of sets according to the tournament, and different tie-break systems - so maybe changing the scoring system is not the golden bullet after all.

    How do the scoring methods for MD, MX and WD differ from one another?
    You are right in that the old system has 3 distinct scoring systems vs the one unified new scoring system.
    The old scoring system for MS has no second serve after the loss of the first serve, best of 3x15, and the server always serving on the side of the court of his or her score (odd no. on the left and even no. on the right).
    In MD/MX/WD, you have a second serve, you always serve from the right side on a change of service side, irrespective of your score, which is at odds with the singles game which allows serving from either the left or the right in acordance with your score.
    In WS, the same comments on MS apply here but with another change from 3x15 to 3x11.
    The new system has the same 3x21, the same no second serve, the same serving side. It is one grand unifying scoring system that is simple to understand, especially for people new to the game.
    I was brought up with the imperial system of weights and measures but I found switching to the metric system makes life so much simpler. It is the same story with numbers. The Indian 0 decimal system replaced all the old Roman and other numbering systems a long time ago, but only after a great fight.

  9. #247
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    You are right in that the old system has 3 distinct scoring systems vs the one unified new scoring system.
    The old scoring system for MS has no second serve after the loss of the first serve, best of 3x15, and the server always serving on the side of the court of his or her score (odd no. on the left and even no. on the right).
    In MD/MX/WD, you have a second serve, you always serve from the right side on a change of service side, irrespective of your score, which is at odds with the singles game which allows serving from either the left or the right in acordance with your score.
    In WS, the same comments on MS apply here but with another change from 3x15 to 3x11.
    The new system has the same 3x21, the same no second serve, the same serving side. It is one grand unifying scoring system that is simple to understand, especially for people new to the game.
    I was brought up with the imperial system of weights and measures but I found switching to the metric system makes life so much simpler. It is the same story with numbers. The Indian 0 decimal system replaced all the old Roman and other numbering systems a long time ago, but only after a great fight.
    As usual you have taught me all about something I know, but you didn't answer my question. What is the 4th system? How do MD, WD & Mx differ from one another? Why do you exagerate your case by making out that the trial singles is identical to the trial doubles? It is 3 vs 2. And irrelevant.

  10. #248
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Toulouse, France
    Posts
    2,841
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Anyway the question is about switching from serve scoring to rally scoring.
    This has NOTHING to do with having differences in MS, WS and doubles.

    You can keep serve scoring and decide there is only one service per doubles pair, this has nothing to do with rally scoring.

    Personnally, I am not against any change to scoring system, I am simply against rally scoring and shortening overall match durations.

  11. #249
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    LuckyTown
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    The old scoring system for MS has no second serve after the loss of the first serve, best of 3x15, and the server always serving on the side of the court of his or her score (odd no. on the left and even no. on the right).
    In MD/MX/WD, you have a second serve, you always serve from the right side on a change of service side, irrespective of your score, which is at odds with the singles game which allows serving from either the left or the right in acordance with your score.
    Are you seriously comparing a Singles game with a Doubles game? Are you drunk??


    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    In WS, the same comments on MS apply here but with another change from 3x15 to 3x11.
    AFAIK, women are less endurant than men. Analogy: Tennis.

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    The new system has the same 3x21, the same no second serve, the same serving side. It is one grand unifying scoring system that is simple to understand, especially for people new to the game.
    Not simpler to understand. More confusing.

  12. #250
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seven
    This has NOTHING to do with having differences in MS, WS and doubles.

    I am simply against rally scoring and shortening overall match durations.
    I completely agree on both points.

  13. #251
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lymm, United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,287
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i'm just against shortened match durations and the lessened chance of a comeback...

    Coops

  14. #252
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Toulouse, France
    Posts
    2,841
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coops241180
    i'm just against shortened match durations and the lessened chance of a comeback...

    Coops
    We agree
    Lessened chance of a comeback is the direct consequence of rally scoring.

  15. #253
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Surrey, Canada
    Posts
    1,514
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    after watching some newbies play yesterday, I couldn't help but think how much quicker they would have been off the court if it was rally points. i watched this group playing doubles, and them going around each player at least 3 times each of them losing their services, i would say it must have been a few minutes at least that the score stayed static.

    using the rally point counting (regardless if 3x15 or 3x21), there would have been 12 or 16 points chewed up right there! they would have been off the court so much quicker!

  16. #254
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badrad
    after watching some newbies play yesterday, I couldn't help but think how much quicker they would have been off the court if it was rally points. i watched this group playing doubles, and them going around each player at least 3 times each of them losing their services, i would say it must have been a few minutes at least that the score stayed static.

    using the rally point counting (regardless if 3x15 or 3x21), there would have been 12 or 16 points chewed up right there! they would have been off the court so much quicker!
    And then so would you!

  17. #255
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Surrey, Canada
    Posts
    1,514
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    And then so would you!
    well... yes... and your point would be?

Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New scoring format for Thomas Cup
    By ants in forum Thomas Cup / Uber Cup 2006
    Replies: 40
    : 02-16-2006, 06:28 PM
  2. New Scoring Format for Doubles
    By Kamen in forum General Forum
    Replies: 45
    : 12-29-2005, 02:11 AM
  3. 5*7 scoring format
    By komodo dragon in forum Thomas Laybourn Forum
    Replies: 2
    : 10-04-2003, 10:33 AM
  4. Scoring format to be reverted back to traditional format
    By Winex West Can in forum General Forum
    Replies: 1
    : 03-23-2003, 03:45 PM
  5. New Scoring Format
    By CJ in forum General Forum
    Replies: 22
    : 02-28-2001, 08:00 PM

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
  •