User Tag List

Page 9 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 137 to 153 of 340
  1. #137
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Korea
    Posts
    2,394
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twobeer
    I'm just afraid we will get stuck with a poorer rally-scoring format, if not much protest are heard from pro players. IBF can just claim it was a succes because games got shorter (anyone with half a brain can figure out the games will be shorter, but we may not agree that shorter games "advances" the game of badminton) as there are no solid benefits that can be proved/dissproved during a few tournaments.

    What would lead IBF to conclude it was a failure??
    The stated goal of the IBF in proposing the new system is to make badminton more compatible with TV. Success means TV money pours in. Failure means no change or worse, erstwhile fans lose interest and audiences become even smaller. The latest I heard was that the first 2 months of 2006 will be a trial period. I guess that would include the All England, which will likely be the next tournament televised outside of China (ie. that some of you will be able to watch on something other than PPLive). The feedback from that TV run might come in before a contract deadline for coverage rights to the 2006 WC. Who knows?

  2. #138
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,989
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coops241180
    i think there was a previous post for scoring changes where i suggested it should be rally scoring best of three to 25.. since this ensured a similar game length. do you think this would work?

    Coops
    Maybe that would work ok.. But Still I am dubious about the whole point of changing the scoring system.

    To implement changes, I think first IBF needs to identify the problem and also try to suggest different solutions to the problem. If Scoring-change is found to be THE best solution to the problem, then so be it lets change it..

    But I highly doubt, rally scoring is a big step forward.

    I suspect IBF thinks they can solve complex problems (image, TV coverage, sponsor-money etc) by simple solutions like a rule-change in a board meeting.

    I can also see risks with changing rules randomly..
    a) Adding to confusion about rules and regulations.
    b) Changing implies something is wrong with the sport. So people will natuarally assume there is something wrong with todays badminton. if we need to change it.
    c) Tradtion. Traditiona isn't always bad.. it can also be good to show that the rules still stands the test of time!

    As I mentioned before i think we need to establish what exactly is broken before trying to fix it..

    And I do not think the "product" badminton is the problem, but the effectiveness of "selling" the product that is the key issue here..

    My belief is that changing the "product" will have no or exteremly little effect on the popularity and media-coverage of it (may also have a negative effect). I beleive there are lots of actions IBF could do that would be more meaingful. I am afraid the real issues gets dimmed when putting to much focus and effort of finding a shorter scoring system.

    my 2 cents,
    Twobeer

  3. #139
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Korea
    Posts
    2,394
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twobeer
    And I think that there could be more effective ways to accomodate TV's need for commercial breaks etc. without shortening the game and changing the scoring. It's not like a game of soccer, fotball, Tennis, Boxin etc etc is any shorter than a game of badminton...So I think the problem description is flawed, when they describe TV-coverage problem as being caused by too long games.
    I agree that there could be more effective ways of adapting to TV. However, I am not prepared to concede that time is not a hindrance to TV coverage. One difference I see in badminton is that TV coverage today is more equitable than tennis coverage. How often do you see doubles of Grand Slam tennis events. Maybe it's just me but I can only remember a handful of times when I've seen something other than singles. In badminton, the networks that do cover badminton now cover everything (Korea is notoriously bad for showing only one or two matches on finals day but I believe it to be an exception) and I doubt that many of us would like to part with that easily. I watched 6 hours of badminton on finals day of the WC in August. Do you get that much coverage of Wimbledon finals? I remember seeing <=3h on Saturday for women's singles and <=3h on Sunday for men's singles and if one is over early, you get a snippit of some doubles but that's it. 6h on one afternoon or evening? Tennis might compete. Soccer doesn't. Canadian/American football doesn't. Not many sports demand that much time for a final day and when they do, they only get it when the sports have an audience. The fact that badminton doesn't now is the problem that they are trying to address. I personally don't think it will work.

  4. #140
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,989
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by event
    The stated goal of the IBF in proposing the new system is to make badminton more compatible with TV. Success means TV money pours in. Failure means no change or worse, erstwhile fans lose interest and audiences become even smaller. The latest I heard was that the first 2 months of 2006 will be a trial period. I guess that would include the All England, which will likely be the next tournament televised outside of China (ie. that some of you will be able to watch on something other than PPLive). The feedback from that TV run might come in before a contract deadline for coverage rights to the 2006 WC. Who knows?
    But what are the "requirements" from TV media on the sport?

    What are their requirments on commercial breaks here.. How many? how often? for how long?
    How would 21x3 rally scoring satisfy this better than 15x3 std scoring.

    When seing european coverage of badminton. I feel the biggest issue is that they focus on all disciplines in one broadcast.. Trying to cover MS,MD,XD,LD,LS is simply to much to be able to cover most matches from quarterfinals to finals in large networks.

    I think Media wise it would be best to focus on a men singles tour or similar, to make the sport more known, and more frequently shown on TV. In the beginning I think media production should focus more on player-profiles and educating the public about competetive badminton, rather than try to show all finals in all disciplines for a few select tournaments to a broad public, that don't appriciate the game because they a) don't understand what they see and b) don't know who's who of the pro's...

    /Twobeer

  5. #141
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lymm, United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,287
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twobeer
    But what are the "requirements" from TV media on the sport?

    What are their requirments on commercial breaks here.. How many? how often? for how long?
    How would 21x3 rally scoring satisfy this better than 15x3 std scoring.

    When seing european coverage of badminton. I feel the biggest issue is that they focus on all disciplines in one broadcast.. Trying to cover MS,MD,XD,LD,LS is simply to much to be able to cover most matches from quarterfinals to finals in large networks.

    I think Media wise it would be best to focus on a men singles tour or similar, to make the sport more known, and more frequently shown on TV. In the beginning I think media production should focus more on player-profiles and educating the public about competetive badminton, rather than try to show all finals in all disciplines for a few select tournaments to a broad public, that don't appriciate the game because they a) don't understand what they see and b) don't know who's who of the pro's...

    /Twobeer
    i think i'd prefer them to focus on mixed doubles.. it would endear both male and female viewers, and the speed of doubles is easier to see for the untrained viewer, also the raw power and aggression in doubles is obvious too and there is a wider range of nationalities in the top ten than in men's singles. i doubt that the whole world wants to watch chinese men's singles finals over and over again

    just my opinion of course

    Coops

  6. #142
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coops241180
    i think there was a previous post for scoring changes where i suggested it should be rally scoring best of three to 25.. since this ensured a similar game length. do you think this would work?

    Coops
    It is rally point scoring that will have precisely the opposite of the intended effect. The play will be cautious, rallies will be more drawn out, the server no longer has the luxury of being able to be that bit more aggressive.

    The number of points in a game is of secondary importance.

    Matches will certainly be shorter with rally point scoring but they will be of even less appeal to the TV audience.

    Game length is of no consequence to TV audiences. If that were true there would be no cricket, no baseball and no American football on TV. Not even football where the match lasts 90 minutes of playing time.

    Rule nuances are likewise of little or no importance - you can use the same examples (most people don't even understand the offside law in football) and add rugby as an extra.

    Advert breaks ARE all-important to most TV companies. This is what any changes should address and would make little difference to the sport.

    Give the players a one minute break every 5 points for televised matches and that should do it. End of story.

    The changes as constituted change the sport completely - they should call it worseminton and have a new governing body - and very much for the worse, even in the light of their own avowed goals.

  7. #143
    Regular Member DinkAlot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dcbadminton.net
    Posts
    12,200
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    Game length is of no consequence to TV audiences. If that were true there would be no cricket, no baseball and no American football on TV. Not even football where the match lasts 90 minutes of playing time.
    Baseball games last an average of almost 3 hours and if you go deep into extra innings, easily 4+ hours.

  8. #144
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Korea
    Posts
    2,394
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DinkAlot
    Baseball games last an average of almost 3 hours and if you go deep into extra innings, easily 4+ hours.
    This is missing the point. Twobeer and I already pointed out the lack of focus. Why are you comparing a 60-90 minute MS match to a 90 minute soccer game or a 3h baseball game when the norm is to broadcast all the finals in one afternoon for badminton?
    Quote Originally Posted by CWB001
    Advert breaks ARE all-important to most TV companies. This is what any changes should address and would make little difference to the sport.
    Give the players a one minute break every 5 points for televised matches and that should do it. End of story..
    I agree. That is the easy part. That way, you'd avoid the Guangdong Sports compulsion to drop the first few points of games in order to show commercials.
    Quote Originally Posted by coops241180
    i doubt that the whole world wants to watch chinese men's singles finals over and over again
    Yes. I lied when I said I watched all six hours of WC finals in August. If my opinion counted, women's singles and women's doubles would be at the end so that TV networks whose viewers had no interest in watching Xievs.Zhang or Yang/Zhangvs.Gao/Huang for the umpteenth time could cut to other coverage after the interesting matches are over. My opinion would only change marginally if the dominance of the Chinese women were diluted at all because the matches would still be less eventful. Even an all-Chinese men's singles final has fast running and jump-smashing and very aggressive play even if you don't have the national rivalry to add to the mix.

  9. #145
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    131
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kanive
    I am sorry for appearing to be so blunt, but that is a vacuous argument. Since when is not getting a point on winning a rally such a problem? For whom?

    In tennis, you can win 3 rallies and still lose the point. You can win rally after rally after rally, and still lose 6-0. In baseball, you can get 9 hits in 9 innings and still score a grand total of zero runs. In basketball, you can score 1, 2, or 3 points in a single scoring shot! Isn't that confusing? Why don't they make it all 1 point per shot?

    I look around me, and I don't see a single sport which has "simple" scoring rules. What is the problem here, really? Who is pushing for this rally 21 anyway? And why? Why don't they say why?

    Is there a smiley to say "Bah, humbug"?

    Good point!

    It's all really about nothing but money.

    I am not a youngster and I will really be offended if somebody tell me they change the rule to protect older people from injury or to give us a chance to win.

    To play well and avoid injury, you must be fit and train to be fit. It is part and parcel of any physical game, not only badminton. I have seen 60 years old gentleman take on 18 years old school player and win!

  10. #146
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twobeer
    I'm just afraid we will get stuck with a poorer rally-scoring format, if not much protest are heard from pro players. IBF can just claim it was a succes because games got shorter (anyone with half a brain can figure out the games will be shorter, but we may not agree that shorter games "advances" the game of badminton) as there are no solid benefits that can be proved/dissproved during a few tournaments.

    I would also like to point out that most Mens singel matches aren't that long, with todays scoring!

    I don't think womens double play will change dramatically from this scoring.. It's not like they don't try to win the rallies quick as of today?!?!

    What would lead IBF to conclude it was a failure??

    /Twobeer
    i didnt quantify the ibf's term of failures because i didnt read the IBF's internal memos regarding their justificatio of change. However, from my point of view, failure of the 21 rally point system would involve:
    - failure to make gain in north american and european's sport TV network coverage during this trial period
    - the badminton fan base continue to show support of the original scoring system after about a year of trying out the 21 point system/

  11. #147
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Uppsala, Sweden
    Posts
    213
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Can't say rally scoring will improve the sport in any way. I've followed volleyball at least for 20 years and must say that the side-out play is just too boring. Takes less (tactical) skill than before, just hammer it on....And fluke shots makes bigger impacts too.

    What changes have tennis adopted since Hastings 1066? Well you can look at more flesh than before but then it is more appealing to watch porn....Big improvment of the sport

    In what way is more marketing *not* the solution? That's the only solution. Yeah, lots of friends will start watching badminton now since the scoring system changed.....and the game is suddenly not "back-garden" since now you need a Ph.D to understand the new doubles serving system I'll tell that to everyone I see and expect them to be badminton fans.

    Please explain to me in what way the common people will find the sport any more interesting than before. Simplicity of rules isn't any issue, I just say Cricket...Developing the sport isn't gonna happen since rally scoring means "side-out" play and that means more brute force than tactics. Shorter games means nothing, number of occations for commercials counts. The proposed "time-slip" system would be more interesting to give a go than rally scoring.

    I agree with twobeer that IBF should start a tour like ATP/WTA. With a headsponsor *not* involved in sports (no Yonex, Nike etc), but a car, clothes, electronics etc etc company with interest to reach new markets.

    /mats


    Quote Originally Posted by coops241180
    i think it was the not scoring unless your serving bit that people didn't understand.. ie.. you win a rally, but it doesn't get you anything but the serve.. and the serve isn't exactly an advantage.

    don't get me wrong - i'm happy with how the scoring is at the moment, but i have faith in the IBF to do the right thing. tennis and table tennis have both tweaked rules to make them more tv, spectator and player friendly.

    it's cheaper to change rules than it is to try to market a sport, especially when the sport's image is so 'back-garden'. it would require a vast spend to get the sport anywhere near where it wants to be. And for a lot of people that's either not justified, or simply can't be afforded.

    Complaining about it doesn't achieve anything. As my maths teacher once said - don't come to me with problems, come to me with solutions..

    saying ' we need to market the sport better' is not a solution. unless of course your willing to pay billions to get 'Play badminton' emblazoned on every billboard, bus, taxi, tv advert, sports superstar etc etc so that the sport get's into the public eye.

    i respect the IBF for not giving up and doing everything they can to make the sport more popular..

    Coops

  12. #148
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cal Central
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Rally point feedback form to IBF

    Shuttlers et al.,

    Attached is the feedback form that you may send to IBF, via your local baddy associations/clubs/organisations if necessary.

    FYI: In the form, the question bordered with thick lines at the top of the table is given as an example. The pdf if not in a fillable format , so you will need to send the printed hard copy. The "Any Comments:" section is less than four lines, I am certain these will be enough!?
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by 2wheels04; 12-15-2005 at 10:53 AM. Reason: typo

  13. #149
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Toulouse, France
    Posts
    2,841
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quasimodo
    For the latest players' comments on the new rally scoring system.

    http://www.intbadfed.org/Portal/desk...10&ItemID=1902

    Looks positive, so far.
    Keep in mind this article is completely biased in favour of the new scoring.
    This is the official IBF website man!

  14. #150
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Toulouse, France
    Posts
    2,841
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twobeer
    Making the game shorter, does of course make it less demanding for the body (= less injuries ?!?).. But if a short game is the "goal" (Which I think not!), Then they could just have stuck with the 7x5 scoring.. (or even go 7x3 :P for "really shorte, injury-safe games)...

    This is not "evolving" the sport. If New material make smashes faster etc.. It would more likely be shorter rallies than longer.. This is just making the game less demanding.. And I don't think less is more!!!

    /Twobeer

    Shorter games means less stamina more power, this doesn't mean less injuries but probably MORE injuries, including injuries during training as players will need much more power training.

  15. #151
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Toulouse, France
    Posts
    2,841
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by event
    The stated goal of the IBF in proposing the new system is to make badminton more compatible with TV. Success means TV money pours in. Failure means no change or worse, erstwhile fans lose interest and audiences become even smaller. The latest I heard was that the first 2 months of 2006 will be a trial period. I guess that would include the All England, which will likely be the next tournament televised outside of China (ie. that some of you will be able to watch on something other than PPLive). The feedback from that TV run might come in before a contract deadline for coverage rights to the 2006 WC. Who knows?
    In fact trial will be conducted on all IBF events from beginning of february to mid-may.
    Tournaments in january should still be playing in the current scoring.

  16. #152
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    142
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IMO, this new scoring stinks. Why change a working system? 3x15.

  17. #153
    Regular Member DinkAlot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    dcbadminton.net
    Posts
    12,200
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by event
    This is missing the point. Twobeer and I already pointed out the lack of focus. Why are you comparing a 60-90 minute MS match to a 90 minute soccer game or a 3h baseball game when the norm is to broadcast all the finals in one afternoon for badminton?I agree.
    I am stating a fact. That is all. Don't try to read anything more into it.

Page 9 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
  •