User Tag List

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 18 to 34 of 71

Thread: Shame on IBF

  1. #18
    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 cxytdn
    It's gone on the IBF website.
    Maybe a forum member brought this to their attention. They are responding, it seems. Well, why not try to contact the IBF directly with constructive suggestions, like drafting a well written set of badminton laws in English, Chinese, Bahasa Indonesia/Malaysia, Hindi, Japanese, Korean, Danish, Nigerian, etc? I think there are more non-English speaking badminton players out there. BF has enough expertise in most languages. Let us share our translation and drafting expertise with the IBF.

  2. #19
    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 taneepak
    In any tribe-and humans are very tribal-the smart ones always rule and the bottom ones always grumble. The smart ones are the minority, but for some strange reasons the majority bottom ones are more inclined to vote for the smart ones to be their leader. Sometimes they kick out a smartie leader, only to vote in another smartie.
    This is a matter of power, not smartness.
    Or do you think Mr G.W.Bush is the smartest guy on earth?? (sorry this is going off topic! )

  3. #20
    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 seven
    This is a matter of power, not smartness.
    Or do you think Mr G.W.Bush is the smartest guy on earth?? (sorry this is going off topic! )
    Sometimes we don't see the real boss. The late Deng Siow Ping never had any official title but he was the real 'emperor'.

  4. #21
    Regular Member jug8man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    2,082
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Sometimes we don't see the real boss. The late Deng Siow Ping never had any official title but he was the real 'emperor'.
    Are you suggesting Someone is Running IBF by PROXY?

    Gosh! The thickening plot is squishing my brain !

    The Borneon BaddyNut

  5. #22
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,333
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seven
    In case it wasn't clear, IBF clearly does not work in a democratic way.
    For it to be democratic, it would already need votes to take place in a democratic way...
    It seems to me that democracy works in many ways - depending on who and where you are. The notion of democracy means different things to different people, not just the English or American brand of democracy.

    Imposing one's brand of democracy on others may create a lot of problems for the culture, historical background. state of economic development, literacy rate, etc, differ from country to country. Often what we think is democratic or not democratic may be viewed entirely differently by others.

    In many underdeveloped and developing countries, what counted most for the impoverished people is not democracy or politics but the ability to survive by the day. And it is in such countries that the income disparity between the poor and the rich, the powerless and the powerful, remains rather great.

    But when the income gap becomes unbearable, when the general populace felt they have to fight back in order to survive, when they think that the present rulers are incompetent and corrupted and take no heed of their welfare, then that is when social disorder and people power can emerge and overthrow the government. Power changes hands, sometimes with the unnecessary loss of human lives and property, but if the new leadership proves to be ineffective and corruption again rears its ugly head, they will be back to square one, unfortunately

    Coming back to the IBF, which has a long and colourful history and many of its rules and practices have been set over the years with changes and new ones being added from time to time, it has done relatively well compared with some other organizations which have still not made it to the Olympics. It's initial progress has been slow but looking back to the past few years, much has been done and if Punch Gunalan has his way, he will make badminton second to none in the racket sport and even overtaking tennis as the most glamourous TV event.

    Had the IBF not been democratic, it would have long disappeared to be replaced by a more competent organization. Then the Europeans will continue to dominate its proceedings and Asia and Punch Gunalan will have no chance to make their mark! The IBF headquarters would not have left its birthplace for its long West-East journey to Kuala Lumpur. And mind you, the IBF Council is multinational, not confined to just Asian representatives. So the IBF is still democratic in this sense as the decision-making is not monopolized by a single person (dictator) or a homogeneous group - it is cross-cultural, cross-border, cross-national.

    I would not base my judgement on hearsays. Rather I want to see the results of IBF's decisions - whether they put action to words.

    As regards the representational voting system of the IBF, I also find this rather unsatisfactory because they base it on the number of active players in a country - the more of such players, the more the number of votes for that country, although there is a maximum. If the IBF wants to be truly international, they should not discriminate against the smaller countries with less active players. One country one vote seems to be more democratic. But then how do you prevent vote-buying (or corruption)?

    Again, democracy means different things to different people.

  6. #23
    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 jug8man
    Are you suggesting Someone is Running IBF by PROXY?

    Gosh! The thickening plot is squishing my brain !

    The Borneon BaddyNut
    No, I was referring to elected leaders of countries, more so in a democracy. The elected head is chosen, powers divided and shared, only after a lot of horse trading. In some countries a political party of one can be a king maker. The more democratic we become the more our elected leaders become a product of institutions. At the other extreme end the lion king is a true alpha king of his pride. At our end, we do see some real naturally born leaders, but only in less developed countries. In more developed countries, the elected leader needs more help to be what he is.

  7. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree with Loh, who puts it in a very mild way.
    There have been a lot of virulent attacks specifically on, and nakedly aimed at, Punch Gunalan but using the IBF as a front. The IBF is multi-national but the attacks on the IBF have singled out Punch Gunalan. Now, this is not lost on forum members, especially those from Asian countries and in particular Malaysia. The recent shift of badminton power from the west to the east, the controversies over the west-supported 7 points system and the new east-supported 21 points system, the angry outburst over the recent new IBF software instead of understanding, and 'rubbing salt into wounds' of singling out Punch Gunalan for publu lynching, are a dangerous mix that could get out of hand.

  8. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh
    As regards the representational voting system of the IBF, I also find this rather unsatisfactory because they base it on the number of active players in a country - the more of such players, the more the number of votes for that country, although there is a maximum. If the IBF wants to be truly international, they should not discriminate against the smaller countries with less active players. One country one vote seems to be more democratic. But then how do you prevent vote-buying (or corruption)?
    I rather disagree with this. It is like a parliament representation where one MP represents 1 million people and another represents 1 thousand. It is not fair that they have one vote each because the voice of the majority is in danger of being lost. (Say the 1 thousand people are rich people who want to cut the rich tax and increase the poor tax.)

    Ideally, the members of IBF should be each individual who holds badminton true, people like us who are fans of badminton first and foremost (more than being fans of Lin Dan or Taufik etc.). And each of us should have a vote and when we vote, we think about badminton as a whole without selfish national or continental bias.

    But that is practically impossible so we are stuck with the current IBF. But you are right when you say IBF is multi-national, not just a Punch Gunalan realm. The move from Europe to Asia is a decision of all, and so are the changes proposed.

  9. #26
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    11,333
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hcyong
    I rather disagree with this. It is like a parliament representation where one MP represents 1 million people and another represents 1 thousand. It is not fair that they have one vote each because the voice of the majority is in danger of being lost. (Say the 1 thousand people are rich people who want to cut the rich tax and increase the poor tax.)
    I can't say I disagree with you on the MP represenational system. But you must remember that whilst the MP is engaged in domestic politics, within one's own country, IBF is supposed to be multi-national, in a way a mini-UN.

    As such, IBF should not discriminate if its main objective is to promote badminton worldwide. The present voting systems is akin to a "big brother telling a small brother that the latter should get less" because he joins the family later and he is smaller in size.

    I don't know the history of present IBF voting system (whether it was decided even before IBF becomes international) and how they came to such a decision, but it doesn't appear to be 'democratic' if you agree with the general principle of "one-man-one vote" system. Imagine in a democracy, a poor man, a woman, a person from a lower social strata or a lower caste group, get only a fraction of the vote of the ordinary citizen, one would question what sort of a democracy that is!

    Though there remain varying degrees of development among member IBF countries, the leaders of such countries are educated and they understand the principles of both discrimination and fairness. They joined the IBF because they are interested in the game and want their countries to improve. One way for international badminton to move forward is to discard this uneven voting system and to treat every nation alike in the decision-making process.

  10. #27
    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 Loh
    But then how do you prevent vote-buying (or corruption)?
    Yes, you've understood the problem!

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh
    Again, democracy means different things to different people.
    Democracy does have a precise meaning, but if you take it strictly, you certainly can't consider USA as a democracy. (nor France actually)


    About the efficiency of IBF, I'm sorry I can't agree with you Loh.
    Badminton is (or was?) one of the most popular sport worldwide and is as old as most major sports, and I think IBF has been pretty unefficient over the years to promote and structure the sport, mainly due to internal political problems...

  11. #28
    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 hcyong
    I rather disagree with this. It is like a parliament representation where one MP represents 1 million people and another represents 1 thousand. It is not fair that they have one vote each because the voice of the majority is in danger of being lost. (Say the 1 thousand people are rich people who want to cut the rich tax and increase the poor tax.)

    Ideally, the members of IBF should be each individual who holds badminton true, people like us who are fans of badminton first and foremost (more than being fans of Lin Dan or Taufik etc.). And each of us should have a vote and when we vote, we think about badminton as a whole without selfish national or continental bias.

    But that is practically impossible so we are stuck with the current IBF. But you are right when you say IBF is multi-national, not just a Punch Gunalan realm. The move from Europe to Asia is a decision of all, and so are the changes proposed.
    Agree with you, the number of registered players of each national federation has to be taken into account in the votes.

  12. #29
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Member associations' votes decide who run the IBF. The way votes are being alloted to each member association has evolved over the years, depending on who actually have the votes at a given period. In the old days a small country with few good players could run the whole show because the rules and the votes at that time allowed them to do so. Currently, we have a compromise system, a little of the old and the new. The new system allows 1 to 5 votes for each member associatiom, based on their number of active players. The number of active players and vote entitlement is not linear, so any new country new to badminton will have at least one vote. The present system is not perfect but is a system that keeps the peace. It is also a great improvement over all the older systems, which were downright discriminatory. Over the longer term, the voting system will be closer to one country one vote. But when one country one vote arrives, we can expect the demise of the Thomas, Uber, Surdiman Cup. In their place, we will have the World Cup, Continental Cup, National Cups, Premier League, etc.

  13. #30
    Regular Member Bbn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,004
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default ---------------------------

    Since Seven seems to be against the IBF (or is it the present IBF) why not give your views on what is a better alternative,

    I am sure it would be interesting as most of us are not involved with them

    and merely listen to rumours.

    Where I come from criticism is only accepted if it is constructive, not bitching around and nit picking. As some of you claim, decisions must be based on facts, research etc.

    In some societies it is accepted practice to find minor faults with people

    to remove them from position as in football in a certain country.it is a matter of culture so "watch your back".

    To me it is like saying one has the right to divorce one's wife if one finds out

    later that performance in bed or written English is below par.

    So let's hear it, most of us are not the people who torch your embassy

    if we do not agree if what you believe, (assuming it is sensible.)

  14. #31
    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 Bbn
    So let's hear it, most of us are not the people who torch your embassy

    if we do not agree if what you believe, (assuming it is sensible.)
    So it is OK to torch an embassy if what someone says is not sensible?

  15. #32
    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 Bbn
    Since Seven seems to be against the IBF (or is it the present IBF) why not give your views on what is a better alternative
    I may disappoint you but I am not candidate for entering IBF board!

    We have already made propositions in threads about scoring system on more important things to reform, including : grand prix circuit (too many equivalent tournaments), world ranking system (too many points for first round losers) etc...

    There would be many more things to do, but I don't see the point in spending hours thinking on them, when we have no power of decision anyway...
    (it's IBF board's job to do the thinking)

  16. #33
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Toulouse, France
    Posts
    2,841
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now there are objective ways of assessing IBF's efficiency over the years :
    take other sports created around the same dates (19th century) then compare their development until now.

    Also compare the number of badminton players in the world to its TV coverage, and compare it with figures of other sports.

    etc...

    For each area, you can do this type of measurements and see if you think IBF has been efficient.

    Also, just for fun, count the number of times scoring system has changed in the past five (or ten) years in each sport... (OK that one's too easy )

  17. #34
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Toulouse, France
    Posts
    2,841
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    By the way Bbn, I am not against IBF by principle.

    I have been defending IBF decisions or rules quite often on this forum in fact.

    And I know there are many historical reasons for IBF to be what it is now too.

    But it is true that many recent IBF decisions have been really bad, and I think the current team is really not up to it, and are harming our sport a lot!!

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Scandalous!!! What a shame!! Kim/Ra got only $7000 prize money!!
    By crazy_smasher in forum All England 2004
    Replies: 2
    : 03-15-2004, 04:31 AM
  2. Shame !
    By willie in forum General Forum
    Replies: 11
    : 10-28-2002, 11:09 AM
  3. Shame On The Line Judges
    By ALI in forum Thomas/Uber Cup 2002
    Replies: 7
    : 05-17-2002, 04:57 AM
  4. What a shame!!!!
    By hm... in forum 2001 Sudirman Cup / World Championships
    Replies: 12
    : 06-01-2001, 07:54 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
  •