User Tag List

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 52 to 68 of 93
  1. #52
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    650
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    better my ass -- all the best matches i've seen in badminton have been long ones... and now they have made the game shorter... call it shortminton

    there are far more people complaining than complimenting the new system

    and there is virtually nobody who wants to play the new system over the old outside of pro badminton

    The new scoring is just a random change to the game they made with very little forethought in my opinion .... as far as my experience, I've played since I was 13 i guess thats about 12 years since i'm 25 years old now ... I haven't once in that time heard a single player complain about the scoring system ..nor anyone from other sports who played badminton - from like tennis or whatever.. yet it somehow needs changing?

  2. #53
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    indonesia
    Posts
    5,678
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wedgewenis
    better my ass -- all the best matches i've seen in badminton have been long ones... and now they have made the game shorter... call it shortminton

    there are far more people complaining than complimenting the new system

    and there is virtually nobody who wants to play the new system over the old outside of pro badminton

    The new scoring is just a random change to the game they made with very little forethought in my opinion .... as far as my experience, I've played since I was 13 i guess thats about 12 years since i'm 25 years old now ... I haven't once in that time heard a single player complain about the scoring system ..nor anyone from other sports who played badminton - from like tennis or whatever.. yet it somehow needs changing?
    but tennis is longer than badminton, tennis men single can last 3 - 4 hours

  3. #54
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    399
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FrenziedEye
    I dont think ive ever seen a 21-0 ......closest one was Stuart Brehaut (AUS) vs some Kenyan guy....he was leading 17-0, then gave away one point....21-1 at the end..

    Lol....


    I was there too. He gave a charity point I think....... Way too good!.

    If there is no tie break at 20 all......then the maximum rallies possible in a game to 21 would be 41 rallies. if there is a tie break of 3 points then 46 rallies maximum in a game.

    Stuart Brehaut was one player I could never beat in junior tournaments, there was another guy but can't remember his name.
    I stoped playing for 6 years.... I should have kept playing maybe I would have been a substitute or their water boy--------->lol

  4. #55
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    176
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Longer term it will be a level playing field, as a new generation of players will take over and they wouldn't know what the old system was all about.
    Let's hope it'll never get this far!!

    Come on guys, how can you be in favour of the new rules
    Fend. have you played a lot with the new rules yet, it sucks (can't find other words)

    Badminton = 15*3 without rallypoint!!
    Using the rallypoint rules it feels it ain't badminton anymore

    Funny..nearly 80% of the people who participated in the polls are against this all (also on the dutch forum)
    And still we are afraid to have to deal with new regulations..
    If 80% of badmintonlovers is against all this, there's no way Punch will get his 2/3 of the votes, right?

    (wish it was this simple )

  5. #56
    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 m_poppema
    If 80% of badmintonlovers is against all this, there's no way Punch will get his 2/3 of the votes, right?

    (wish it was this simple )
    If what you say is true then the decision is a sure bet that they will vote down the new system. Relax, there is then nothing to worry about. But what if you are wrong about the 80%? It is true that those who are against any change in anything, be it a new scoring system in badminton or a hike in taxes, are particularly vocal in their opposition. What about the delegates who will actually cast the votes? Perhaps they don't see this the same way as the '80% of badminton lovers' ? Perhaps more of them will think that the new system is just as good plus it will bring in more money. National badminton associations have to be able to support themselves and to generate funds, the more the better.
    Actually the Commonwealth games badminton matches do not have to use the new system. I wonder why they chose it? Is it indicative of the wishes of the majority Commonwealth countries? If so, there goes your 2/3 majority. Also China has officially backed the new system, and China is not without influence over most Asian and third world countries. The vote will be a battle royal. It is going to be much closer than the seemingly impossibe 2/3 hurdle.

  6. #57
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    176
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    The vote will be a battle royal. It is going to be much closer than the seemingly impossibe 2/3 hurdle.
    I know it will be Taneepak..
    I just hope it will all be somehow democratical, it's ok to influence small countries in my eyes..
    but if there's any money involved in 'influencing small countries' that'll be a bad thing!

    ps. I think the poll is clear about the 80% though (at least last time I checked it)

  7. #58
    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 m_poppema
    I know it will be Taneepak..
    I just hope it will all be somehow democratical, it's ok to influence small countries in my eyes..
    but if there's any money involved in 'influencing small countries' that'll be a bad thing!

    ps. I think the poll is clear about the 80% though (at least last time I checked it)
    But the poll is voluntary, and as such it only represents those who feel strongly against any change. A more accurate poll is to get the opinions of everyone, irrespective of whether they are against the proposal or they couldn't care less.
    Also real leadership is called for here. The acid test is not whether the majority is for or against it; neither is it a popular vote. The results in the years to come will be the real judge as to whether the new system is good.
    Just like in France now with the mass demonstration against the new labour law. I salute the PM of France for his leadership and far-sightedness.

  8. #59
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Except for shorter matches (and of course, the confusion in doubles), there is no difference between the two systems. Whether you or your opponent serves, you try to win the rally regardless of the system (serving to the net is equally bad in both systems). So, the only major change is that the new system favours the player with less stamina.

    Sometimes, it is really exciting to watch the service keep changing without any points scored. Sometimes, it is downright boring. Perhaps, it would have been more fun to see the players play catch-up on points, like table tennis.

    My own preference: 5 x 15 PAR (point-a-rally)
    Why? Well, I think the game should not be shortened. In thrashing games, the length stay about the same (42 points in 21x3 versus 45 points in 15x5) but in tight games, when it all goes down to the fifth game, it will be like the previous 15x3. I prefer PAR because there is a certainly that a point will be gotten. I only see server-gains-point in women's squash now. Other sports have adopted PAR.

  9. #60
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    219
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The good thing about the new system is that the game is shorter and the players thus expose to lesser risk of injury. Furthermore, shorter play time is in favour of players with less stamina. Future badminton will not be a test of strength but a test of tectical game play. As a result we can see more older players stay in their careers, making the sport more competitive.

  10. #61
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I prefer the older system myslef, higher chance of come backs. I have had a few where i looked to have lost the game but come back to win, you take away the chance of these with the new system. Although it is not not impossible it is much harder.

    On the plus side, however, games are shorter so players are able to play well at the end of the game, because they are not as tired, cutting out tired mistakes.

  11. #62
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    445
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FrenziedEye

    I dont think ive ever seen a 21-0 ......closest one was Stuart Brehaut (AUS) vs some Kenyan guy....he was leading 17-0, then gave away one point....21-1 at the end...

    my two cents --> dont know what you think of that guys!
    Jens Eriksen and Martin Lundgaard beat some Armenian pair in the Thomas cup qualifiers 21-1 21-0, and also Gail Emms and Donna Kellogg beat a Seychelles pair 21-1 21-1 last week.

    The new system skews the scoreline slightly in that you no longer have to win 2 rallies in a row to score a point, so you have much more chance of winning points. I think that the new score system actually gives a more accurate reflection of the match as everything is recorded and everything counts.

  12. #63
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    399
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hcyong
    Except for shorter matches (and of course, the confusion in doubles), there is no difference between the two systems. Whether you or your opponent serves, you try to win the rally regardless of the system (serving to the net is equally bad in both systems). So, the only major change is that the new system favours the player with less stamina.
    .

    Depending on the player tactics will change , it will for me and many others.


    The new system favours the player with less stamina?

    How can this be a good thing?
    So players who are unfit will benefit?

  13. #64
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongReach
    Depending on the player tactics will change , it will for me and many others.


    The new system favours the player with less stamina?

    How can this be a good thing?
    So players who are unfit will benefit?
    I didn't say it is a good thing. I only said it is the major difference between the two systems.

    It's not exactly that it favours players with less stamina. More like, a player with less stamina would like the new system rather than the old because games will tend to be shorter. There is no disadvantage to the player with more stamina. Stamina still plays a vital role, but not as big as previously.

  14. #65
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fast3r
    ...
    The new system skews the scoreline slightly in that you no longer have to win 2 rallies in a row to score a point, so you have much more chance of winning points. I think that the new score system actually gives a more accurate reflection of the match as everything is recorded and everything counts.
    Yeah, I mentioned somewhere else before that theorectically, you could win 33% of the rallies, but still get a duck. Yes, 15-0 even if you win a third of the time. How? Win once, lose twice, win once, lose twice, and keep going... Under the new system, the scoreline would have been the more respectable 21-10.

  15. #66
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hcyong
    Yeah, I mentioned somewhere else before that theorectically, you could win 33% of the rallies, but still get a duck. Yes, 15-0 even if you win a third of the time. How? Win once, lose twice, win once, lose twice, and keep going... Under the new system, the scoreline would have been the more respectable 21-10.
    Actually, you can win almost half the rallies and still get a duck under the old system. Win once, lose once, win once, lose once, ... win once, lose twice, ... and you still get 15-0. Under the new system, you will lose by 21-18 or 21-19, you may even win by 30-29, if you keep winning once and losing once (as long as you win the last point).

  16. #67
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    399
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hcyong
    I didn't say it is a good thing. I only said it is the major difference between the two systems.

    It's not exactly that it favours players with less stamina. More like, a player with less stamina would like the new system rather than the old because games will tend to be shorter. There is no disadvantage to the player with more stamina. Stamina still plays a vital role, but not as big as previously.

    I know you didn't say it was a good thing........It was more a question that was not directed at you . More of a statement than a question, like: how can this be good?

    Yes, players who are more 'unfit' will most probably prefer this new system.

  17. #68
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Malaysia,PG
    Posts
    187
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    the new scoring system is excited to watch when both of the player are trailing almost the same point such as 19/17 etc.. But, they is no way or very hard for a player to come back when they are trailing behind eg. 11/19, because a single mistake will add a mark to the leading oponent. So, the leading player is for sure will win.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Six-Point Suspension Vs. Six-Point Internal
    By Pete LSD in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 107
    : 04-17-2012, 01:11 AM
  2. Who Gets The Point?
    By 16_FeatherS in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 9
    : 05-14-2011, 01:18 AM
  3. Who won the point?
    By Wong8Egg in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 5
    : 03-29-2009, 08:04 AM
  4. Replies: 12
    : 03-19-2009, 08:26 AM
  5. 2-point, 4-point, 6-point stringing machines-what does it mean?
    By taneepak in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 11
    : 06-30-2004, 06:34 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
  •