User Tag List

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 103 to 119 of 124
  1. #103
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,992
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasuya
    The change of the scoring system.... is it really that difficult to adjust to it? and also is it really that bad that we can't even give it a try ourselves??? BTW, how many of you have tried using it in your own games before?
    It's not particular hard to adjust.. but it makes the game a bit shorter, and big comebacks much more unlikely. The annoying thing is to change things without any positvie effects..Can't think of ONE single positive thing with shorter games and getting points when the opponent is serving.
    What ticks me off is the way the scoring change is "marketed" and "pushed trough" without ´grassroot support in the player community!!

    Quote Originally Posted by kasuya
    I tried it the other day when playing in a club in a doubles game, and all four of us seemingly like it. Not that we don't like the 15x3 system, but we find that the rally system is acceptable, unlike what most of you complain about.
    Why should we settle for "acceptable"? don't we wont the best possible rules and game... I see no reason to accept inferiority. We should strive to improve the game not just change for change sake...
    We should definitively not makes changes that makes the game require LESS skill and stamina!!
    Would you find it "acceptable" if IBF voted to use Mavis 350 for IBF tournaments? Would You find it "acceptable" if they changed to overhead services from behind the baseline???

    Quote Originally Posted by kasuya
    Yes, there are differences, and there are things that we have to adjust to... but does it necessarily need to take irrational actions to try to change something that seemingly won't change for you and me.

    Badminton is a sport that requires lots of physical and mental skill, no matter how the scoring system is... nobody can take that away.
    Of course it can!! just change the scoring to 1 point per set, and the physical skill and mental skill will not be much required, a lucky shot or roll on the net will win you the match (even against Lin Dan)!!

    Quote Originally Posted by kasuya
    If you can't win under the new system and just wish the IBF to change back to the old one so you can have a better chance at winning a tournament or something then I wish you good luck, but I would much rather practice more and win more tourneys under any system. It is much better to use the time which you use to whine about the new system to further improve your skill than sitting around on your butt in front of a computer... wait, isn't that what I am doing here... hahahaha...
    Actually I think players who win with the old system will be able to win with the shorter 21 games as well.. The only different is that some players who where not fit enough to win 15x3 tournament now will have a chance to be contenders as well.. And in very even matches luck will play a bigger factor (due to the rally scoring) than with 15x3 where you have to win the serve and win when serving to get points!
    Last edited by twobeer; 05-12-2006 at 01:11 PM.

  2. #104
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    28
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twobeer
    It's not particular hard to adjust.. but it makes the game a bit shorter, and big comebacks much more unlikely. The annoying thing is to change things without any positvie effects..Can't think of ONE single positive thing with shorter games and getting points when the opponent is serving.
    What ticks me off is the way the scoring change is "marketed" and "pushed trough" without ´grassroot support in the player community!!

    Why should we settle for "acceptable"? don't we wont the best possible rules and game... I see no reason to accept inferiority. We should strive to improve the game not just change for change sake...
    We should definitively not makes changes that makes the game require LESS skill and stamina!!
    Would you find it "acceptable" if IBF voted to use Mavis 350 for IBF tournaments? Would You find it "acceptable" if they changed to overhead services from behind the baseline???

    Of course it can!! just change the scoring to 1 point per set, and the physical skill and mental skill will not be much required, a lucky shot or roll on the net will win you the match (even against Lin Dan)!!

    The word "acceptable" was a soft word I used, and it was meant not to strike any negative response from people who are very much against the new system. In fact, my friends and I liked the new system as much since we were more focused on winning every point and ensure we didn't fall behind on score. There was so much intensivity during that game.

    You try to make a point using extreme examples such as changing the scoring to 1 point per set, is not much of a strong argument.

    Badminton requires much more than what I listed before(physical and mental strength), there are much more things like knowledge of the game, timing of pace changing, mind games---manipulate opponent's emotion status, etc. Some of those things are still required to win a game under the new system. The one thing that most people are concern about is the fact that players are more aware of taking "risk", well guess what... successful people don't avoid risk, they MANAGE risk... so in the case of badminton... go practice more and train on accuracy or something...

  3. #105
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just imagine if you are given a computer game, one with 3x15 format and another is 3x21 format.

    Would you choose the same physical attributes, strokes, strategy and tactic to play both format?

    After testing both formats, which format of the game that you will be spending your hard earn money?

    If you are Bill Gates will it be 3X15 or 3x21 should you market in Xbox ?

  4. #106
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your mind
    Posts
    809
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think that's really a relevant inquiry. The actual physical activity has nothing to do with a video game version. And anyway, there doesn't seem to be any badminton video games, which is either due to the lack of influence in the gaming industry or the difficulties in producing a game that can efficiently match the tactical and physical intensity of the game. Otherwise, it'd probably be pretty dull and unrealistic.

  5. #107
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Try to look at it this way :
    The old system is in the strict sense of 'match' not fair because you cannot win a point for a rally won when not serving. How can you not win a point for winning a rally? Winning the right to serve is justice delayed, and justice delayed is justice denied. It is against natural justice. The mental state of the player is also different when serving and when receiving, one high the other low, thus reducing the real spirit of an all out 'combatants war'. It is like a mini 'tea break' in between serves. It also had to devise three different scoring systems for the same game of badminton! The new system will demand 100% focus, concentration, no 'siestas' in between, and for a change, real intensity and quality shots.

  6. #108
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    650
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now thats just dumb

    To me 21x3 is Not badminton at all, it is a RACE - thats right its a 21 Point race to see who makes less errors.

    Some of the best matches this year were the ones before the experimental scoring started - great comebacks and drama - and then 21x3 came, now the action is usually the same but overall its not better.

    Its a race to make less errors over a pre-determined Number of serves or rallies - and thats all it is.

    Now for pro-badminton it would be fine to me if this was temporary - but overall and for ALL Badminton players in general, this is bad because Way too many people are simply just going to refuse to use this system - myself included. - This sport needs unity and this is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion.
    Last edited by wedgewenis; 05-12-2006 at 10:29 PM.

  7. #109
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Learning my way around Sydney
    Posts
    81
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Personally I am in favour of the old system 15x3 however unless something gets done I suppose I will have to play with the new system from now on since I play competitively. I have tried the new system out in friendlys and watched it in play in competitive matches and I must say it doesnt feel like the badminton Ive gotten used to.

    Right now I am not impressed with the IBF Mr Gunalan in particular but I suspect this may have something to do with the IBF in general. I cannot believe there was no resistance to this change and this was so that is just an indicator of how out of touch the IBF is with the fans and that it has to go. An example of the pig headedness of the IBF at the momment I find is the article on Mr Gunalans treatment of the Russian badminton http://www.badmintoncentral.com/badm...nt/view/111/2/

    At the momment I dont beleive they have the interests of badminton fans at heart and that alone in itself is a reason why the IBF should NOT represent badminton in general. I see why they are implementing this change but I dont agree with sacrificing the game for TV time is worth it and some of the reasons given I do not agree with. There is nothing wrong with a duck! (15-0) thats just a very good indicator for differences in skill levels and that you should probably be playing with someone your own level, and isnt a good enough reason to implement the changes when there is so much fan based opposition to it.

    Anyway Ill end this rant with I hope something is done about this mess and the IBF is scrapped with another body that actually gives a damn about us the fans!

  8. #110
    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 tk009
    Personally I am in favour of the old system 15x3 however unless something gets done I suppose I will have to play with the new system from now on since I play competitively. I have tried the new system out in friendlys and watched it in play in competitive matches and I must say it doesnt feel like the badminton Ive gotten used to.

    Right now I am not impressed with the IBF Mr Gunalan in particular but I suspect this may have something to do with the IBF in general. I cannot believe there was no resistance to this change and this was so that is just an indicator of how out of touch the IBF is with the fans and that it has to go. An example of the pig headedness of the IBF at the momment I find is the article on Mr Gunalans treatment of the Russian badminton http://www.badmintoncentral.com/badm...nt/view/111/2/

    At the momment I dont beleive they have the interests of badminton fans at heart and that alone in itself is a reason why the IBF should NOT represent badminton in general. I see why they are implementing this change but I dont agree with sacrificing the game for TV time is worth it and some of the reasons given I do not agree with. There is nothing wrong with a duck! (15-0) thats just a very good indicator for differences in skill levels and that you should probably be playing with someone your own level, and isnt a good enough reason to implement the changes when there is so much fan based opposition to it.

    Anyway Ill end this rant with I hope something is done about this mess and the IBF is scrapped with another body that actually gives a damn about us the fans!
    You may want to visit this thread "Punch Gunalan and the IBF", post #8 of May 6, 2006 by Mikie from Russia, to get a better balance of what is involved. Also the Court of Arbitration's ruling was hollow because the RBF does not exist any more as an entity of the IBF.

  9. #111
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    319
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Also the Court of Arbitration's ruling was hollow because the RBF does not exist any more as an entity of the IBF.
    Typical spin. The ruling was not hollow. It exposed Punch and the IBF as willing to ignore their own rules to get their way and also to steamroller over the rights of legitimately affiliated players.

    The rights or wrongs of the RBF's side of things is irrelevant, particularly now it is defunct.

  10. #112
    Regular Member ctjcad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    u.s.a.
    Posts
    19,157
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    Try to look at it this way :
    The old system is in the strict sense of 'match' not fair because you cannot win a point for a rally won when not serving. How can you not win a point for winning a rally? Winning the right to serve is justice delayed, and justice delayed is justice denied. It is against natural justice. The mental state of the player is also different when serving and when receiving, one high the other low, thus reducing the real spirit of an all out 'combatants war'. It is like a mini 'tea break' in between serves. It also had to devise three different scoring systems for the same game of badminton! The new system will demand 100% focus, concentration, no 'siestas' in between, and for a change, real intensity and quality shots.
    taneepak,
    i'm sure you know the whole intent behind this "new"(21x3) scoring system, it's nothing more than an attempt by Mr. Gunalan to market and promote the game more, that's corrent isn't it??..Nothing more and nothing less, even he admitted it..
    Now if the "old", previous scoring system was so lame, why did it take this long of an attempt to change it?? Did IBF just all of a sudden thought about the idea overnight?? I'm sure the IBF have thought about changing the scoring system before many2 times(incl. the 5x7). I think IBF is trying to mimic the game of tennis and table tennis too much, whilst they should stay with the original game standard and it's uniqueness and try to promote it in a different way, if this is the main purpose of Mr. Gunalan.

  11. #113
    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 ctjcad
    taneepak,
    i'm sure you know the whole intent behind this "new"(21x3) scoring system, it's nothing more than an attempt by Mr. Gunalan to market and promote the game more, that's corrent isn't it??..Nothing more and nothing less, even he admitted it..
    Now if the "old", previous scoring system was so lame, why did it take this long of an attempt to change it?? Did IBF just all of a sudden thought about the idea overnight?? I'm sure the IBF have thought about changing the scoring system before many2 times(incl. the 5x7). I think IBF is trying to mimic the game of tennis and table tennis too much, whilst they should stay with the original game standard and it's uniqueness and try to promote it in a different way, if this is the main purpose of Mr. Gunalan.
    As I said in my post, this is one way look at it, from a different perspective. And they are quite persuasive arguements.

  12. #114
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    2,214
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What contributes is clarity, not fuzziness.

    -dave

  13. #115
    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
    Typical spin. The ruling was not hollow. It exposed Punch and the IBF as willing to ignore their own rules to get their way and also to steamroller over the rights of legitimately affiliated players.

    The rights or wrongs of the RBF's side of things is irrelevant, particularly now it is defunct.
    Many people cite this Court of Arbitration case to 'rubbish' Punch Gunalan and the IBF. As I said earlier the so-called 'victory' by the RBF is hollow, in every sense of the word. The RBF has no players because all of them have defected and have had enough of the RBF. I think a grave injustice has been done to both Punch and the IBF.
    I would suggest we do not get involved in complex issues that we know very little about, to avoid looking foolish with eggs all over our face.

  14. #116
    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 wedgewenis
    Now thats just dumb

    To me 21x3 is Not badminton at all, it is a RACE - thats right its a 21 Point race to see who makes less errors.

    Some of the best matches this year were the ones before the experimental scoring started - great comebacks and drama - and then 21x3 came, now the action is usually the same but overall its not better.

    Its a race to make less errors over a pre-determined Number of serves or rallies - and thats all it is.

    Now for pro-badminton it would be fine to me if this was temporary - but overall and for ALL Badminton players in general, this is bad because Way too many people are simply just going to refuse to use this system - myself included. - This sport needs unity and this is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion.
    The real test is in the eating. I suggest you watch the Thomas Cup semi-finals and finals. These finals, using the new scoring system, speak for themselves.

  15. #117
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    France
    Posts
    146
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The old system is in the strict sense of 'match' not fair because you cannot win a point for a rally won when not serving. How can you not win a point for winning a rally? Winning the right to serve is justice delayed, and justice delayed is justice denied. It is against natural justice.
    We have been saying in the other thread that
    “In badminton the scale are heavily tipped in favour of receiver, because of the rules governing the server and the height of the net”

    It is therefore logical for the server to win a point and the receiver to win the right to serve.

    You could still argue that 3x21 will place both sides in favour position as receiver when he/she has lost a rally and it is still a fair system compare to 3x15.

    But we are now talking about two completely different systems. Many in this forum have been voiced that the 3x21 is less challenging to play in comparison to the 3x15, and IBF has implied that it is physically less demanding too (though we could always disagree with IBF!).

    Until someone could quantify that the 3x21 is more challenging to play then the 3x15; I will be in favour of the 3x15, what a beautiful game!

  16. #118
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    106
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why its 3X21 rally instead of 3X15? The play is now 2times shorter!
    I think it should be 5X21 (as in volleyball) or 3X31!

  17. #119
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,992
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kasuya
    The word "acceptable" was a soft word I used, and it was meant not to strike any negative response from people who are very much against the new system. In fact, my friends and I liked the new system as much since we were more focused on winning every point and ensure we didn't fall behind on score. There was so much intensivity during that game.

    You try to make a point using extreme examples such as changing the scoring to 1 point per set, is not much of a strong argument.
    Extrapolating is quite useful to explain how even a slight reduction in number of points - game increases the element of luck... (some people will argue shorter games require more mental strength, but the key thing is that things like string breakage, net-roll, line-calls etc etc will be more important with the current system), thus introudcing a slightly bigger element of luck in the game and "flukes" becomes a bigger factor (ie its more likely that the best badminton player may loose a game against an opponent that is very close in skills but are having a "lucky" day, than with the old system).

    weaker players may like this system, as it a) gives them a better chance against a slighty better opponent and b) it requires less physique..

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New Scoring System (21-Rally point system)
    By MikeJ in forum Jonas Rasmussen Forum
    Replies: 21
    : 06-05-2006, 07:03 AM
  2. new 7 point system??
    By wong in forum General Forum
    Replies: 7
    : 04-26-2006, 11:34 PM
  3. TUC Greece - 21 Point System
    By serviceover in forum General Forum
    Replies: 7
    : 02-21-2006, 09:19 AM
  4. WS Point System for SO '05
    By cheongsa in forum Singapore Open 2005 / Malaysia Open 2005
    Replies: 1
    : 06-29-2005, 08:01 AM
  5. the 7 point system?
    By dave C in forum General Forum
    Replies: 6
    : 03-20-2001, 08:41 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
  •