21 rally-point scoring system: Is it really better to Attack?

[Chai]

In the decathlon, the athlete not only has to run both short and long races, he has to jump as well as to throw as far as he can to win. They certainly could!

The decathlon is a 10-event, two-day miniature track meet designed to ascertain the sport's best all-around athlete. Within its competitive rules, each athlete must sprint for 100 meters, long jump, heave a 16-pound shotput, high jump and run 400 meters -- all in that very order -- on the first day. On the second day the athlete runs a 110 meter hurdle race over 42 inch barriers, hurls the discus, pole vaults, tosses a javelin and, at the end of the contest, races over 1500 meters, virtually a mile.

The decathlon was first included in the Olympic Games at Stockholm, Sweden, in 1912, when it was won by American athlete Jim Thorpe.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Top 10 performers
Accurate as of January 1, 2006.

Mark Athlete Nationality Venue Date
9026 Roman Šebrle Czech Republic Götzis May 27, 2001
8994 Tomáš Dvorák Czech Republic Prague July 4, 1999
8891 Dan O'Brien United States Talence September 9, 1992
8847 Daley Thompson United Kingdom Los Angeles August 9, 1984
8832 Jürgen Hingsen West Germany Mannheim June 9, 1984
8820 Bryan Clay United States Athens August 24, 2004
8815 Erki Nool Estonia Edmonton August 7, 2001
8792 Uwe Freimuth East Germany Potsdam July 21, 1984
8784 Tom Pappas United States Palo Alto June 22, 2003
8762 Siegfried Wentz West Germany Bernhausen June 5, 1983

Roman Šebrle (born 26 November 1974 in Lanškroun) is an athlete from the Czech Republic. Originally a high jumper, he competes in decathlon and heptathlon for team Dukla Praha. He is a world record holder in decathlon - in 2001 in Götzis he became the first decathlete ever to achieve over 9000 points and set the record at 9026 points, succeeding his compatriot Tomáš Dvořák, who scored 8994 points two years earlier. After placing second in the decathlon of the 2000 Summer Olympics, Šebrle won the gold medal in the 2004 Summer Olympics.

World Top 3 Individual Events

100 m
Decathlete / Nation / Result / Wind Points Venue Date

1 Chris Huffins USA 10,22 0,9 8546 Atlanta 21.06.1996
2 Daley Thompson GBR 10,26 2,0 8811 Stuttgart 27.08.1986
3 Dan O'Brien USA 10,31 2,6 8707 Knoxville 16.06.1994

400m

1 William Toomey USA 45,68 8144 Mexico City 18.10.1968
2 Duane Ladejo GBR 46,12 7633 Kuala Lumpur 17.09.1998
3 Dean Macey GBR 46,21 8603 Edmonton 06.08.2001

1500m

1 Robert Baker USA 3.58,7 7479 Austin 03.04.1980
2 Herbert Peter GER 4.00,51 7127 Bernhausen 30.07.1978
3 Vladimir Kuznetsov URS 4.00,87028 Zhitomir 25.08.1973

Czech All-time List

Decathlete Points Results

1. Roman Šebrle
Götzis 27.05.2001 9026 10,64 - 8.11 - 15.33 - 2.12 - 47,79 -
13,92 - 47.92 - 4.80 - 70.16 - 4.21,98

2. Tomaš Dvorak
Prague 04.07.99 8994 10,54 - 7.90 - 16.78 - 2.04 - 48,08 -
13,73 - 48.33 - 4.90 - 72.32 - 4.37,20

3. Robert Zmelik
Götzis 31.05.92 8627 10,62 - 8.02 - 13.93 - 2.05 - 48,73 -
13,84 - 44.44 - 4.90 - 61.26 - 4.24,

Interesting, but not the answer I am looking for.

If I am a 800m runner and have to win a running race with a 100m runner; what shall I do to make him run 2000m race instead of I have to run 200m race against him? May be I could run 10 of 200m races with him no rest in between; the winner is the one who won the last race of 200m?

[cooler]

lots of data Loh but what r u trying to say?

[psychict]

I'm confused... Loh's giving all these declathon results ... and ? what does it have to do with 21points in badminton and attacking better for it ?

[chris-ccc]

In the decathlon, the athlete not only has to run both short and long races, he has to jump as well as to throw as far as he can to win. They certainly could!

Hello Everyone,

Decathlon = 10 different events.

Badminton = 10 different strokes(approximately ???).

To me, the Decathlon pushes athletes to their limits of Skill, Stamina and Speed(the three “S”).

I think Loh is bringing/calling to mind by logic or association for consideration that Badminton pushes players to their limits of the three “S”.

And each player has different strengths and weaknesses in the three “S”.

I remember Kwun saying, some 2 years ago, that there are three most fundamental characters that a badminton player should posses. Kwun's three “S” are Strokes, Stamina, and Strategy.

Now, with Loh's injection of this idea into our discussion, he is making us think outside the box.

For me, I have always said that it is “The Art of Playing Badminton”.

We cannot look at Badminton as narrow as many Sports Scientists think.

Cheers... chris@ccc

[ViningWolff]

It's been intersting to read about NSS vs OSS though this thread.

I have agree with Viver on mnay points and I have been taught both by Chinese and more Eurpoean based coaches. ( all my bad habits are self taught )

(Keep in mind I'm talking more about singles)

I see three serve variations: High, short and flick. The flick serve might be seen as a typeof an attacking serve, but on the most part I see the serve as a defensive shot.

Forget the Pros - from my standpoint I like the NSS. Why?

I'm an offense-minded player and I thrive on short bursts of explosive power. I can move pretty quick for a dude my size, but the problem is that I burn a LOT of energy doing so.

With the NSS system I'm looking at a limited number of rallies to complete a game. Between 21 - 40 rallies (give or take the "win by two rule") - that's it!

So if I'm up against a level opponent I can now afford to push it harder for that shorter timeframe...

So from my standpoint, the NSS favours my attacking style ( and tendancy to start fast out of the gate)

I still have not played NSS doubles yet.

[Winex West Can]

Forget the Pros - from my standpoint I like the NSS. Why?

I'm an offense-minded player and I thrive on short bursts of explosive power. I can move pretty quick for a dude my size, but the problem is that I burn a LOT of energy doing so.

With the NSS system I'm looking at a limited number of rallies to complete a game. Between 21 - 40 rallies (give or take the "win by two rule") - that's it!

So if I'm up against a level opponent I can now afford to push it harder for that shorter timeframe...

So from my standpoint, the NSS favours my attacking style ( and tendancy to start fast out of the gate)

I still have not played NSS doubles yet.

Bang! I think you hit it on the head of the nail, VW. Offense-minded: The NSS would favour the offense-minded (OM) player a bit more over the OSS since the games are shorter (although one could argue that if both players wanted to, they can extend the game indefinitely by rallying clears back and fro) so the OM player can afford to exert his/her energy more to finish the games/match quickly.

In the Taipei Open, LCW mentioned that he was tired and I have not seen the match but wasn't it because he expend a fair amount of effort and energy to win the second game and didn't have enough juice left in the third to sustain the same level?

[taneepak]

I dont believe you really understand Viver's view, as it all down to you and many have decided to class the underarm serve stroke is an attacking stroke; then later you again argue underarm serve stroke could produce "attacking shots".

You are saying, again, that I have all along called the serve an attacking stroke. Where have I? What I have said, and I repeat here, is to use the low serve when you want to attack, when your opponent's attack is strong and your defence is weak, use this most of the time in doubles to force the opponents to lift, use it when the shuttle is fast, and use it when the wind is behind you so that your smashes will have more effect.
There is a world of difference between a low serve that is an attacking stroke and one that is used for attack. For example, a tennis serve is an outright attacking stroke whereas a low serve in badminton doubles is a necessary opening gambit to mounting an attack.

[viver]

Well, I guess we were also mistaken about the irretrievable and perfect serve that dips immediately ...

You are saying, again, that I have all along called the serve an attacking stroke. Where have I? What I have said, and I repeat here, is to use the low serve when you want to attack, when your opponent's attack is strong and your defence is weak, use this most of the time in doubles to force the opponents to lift, use it when the shuttle is fast, and use it when the wind is behind you so that your smashes will have more effect.
There is a world of difference between a low serve that is an attacking stroke and one that is used for attack. For example, a tennis serve is an outright attacking stroke whereas a low serve in badminton doubles is a necessary opening gambit to mounting an attack.

[viver]

I'm an offense-minded player and I thrive on short bursts of explosive power. I can move pretty quick for a dude my size, but the problem is that I burn a LOT of energy doing so.

With the NSS system I'm looking at a limited number of rallies to complete a game. Between 21 - 40 rallies (give or take the "win by two rule") - that's it!

So if I'm up against a level opponent I can now afford to push it harder for that shorter timeframe...

So from my standpoint, the NSS favours my attacking style ( and tendancy to start fast out of the gate)

I still have not played NSS doubles yet.

I believe the 21x3 really favour players like your type - super powerful smash (did you use a racquet?? or was that a missile launcher) and good net play

Like you said, shorter games allows you to keep your pace more consistent through it.

[Chai]

You are saying, again, that I have all along called the serve an attacking stroke. Where have I? What I have said, and I repeat here, is to use the low serve when you want to attack, when your opponent's attack is strong and your defence is weak, use this most of the time in doubles to force the opponents to lift, use it when the shuttle is fast, and use it when the wind is behind you so that your smashes will have more effect.
There is a world of difference between a low serve that is an attacking stroke and one that is used for attack. For example, a tennis serve is an outright attacking stroke whereas a low serve in badminton doubles is a necessary opening gambit to mounting an attack.

In that case, you do agree that underarm serve is not attacking stroke ? and underarm serve cannot produce "attacking shots"?

WIll you agree that the "good" receiver is always prepared mentally and in position to attack the server's serve?

Will you agree that the server is at disadvantage in term of who has better opportunity to attack first?

[taneepak]

Well, I guess we were also mistaken about the irretrievable and perfect serve that dips immediately ...

This is the quality low serve that is a pre-requisite and a pre-condition to mounting an attack. A poor serve becomes an instant death sentence instead of setting up an attack. The quality serve has been misunderstood by you as my endorsement as an attacking stroke. I never said that. You and others claim I had said that, which is a distortion of fact. Again, a quality low serve in doubles is a pre-condition to an attack.

[viver]

My apologies for misreading your reply. Maybe I was associating it with the example too much.

Still, I wouldn't classify an underarm stroke as an attacking shot even if it causes the opponent difficulty to return (outcome of the shot?). A good defence shot should not only return the shuttle to the other side of net, but also allows the defender to balance the rally.

PG return shot, in my opinion was an excellent piece of defensive work. Not only the shot placement was superb but also caused the opponent trouble to return it. Excellent material to learn from.

The question is how you classify a shot. In an earlier post you classify attacking shots, all shots that score, whether if underarm or overhead. As long as it scores is an attacking shot.

I don't recall having put it this way. What I might have said was that a shot may start off as defensive in nature (say an underarm stroke) but once it crosses the net and begins to dip and more so if it puts the receiver in some sort of a difficulty, then this very shot can become an attacking one instead! Like the excellent example that you gave on the PG versus Bao match.

[viver]

This is the quality low serve that is a pre-requisite and a pre-condition to mounting an attack. A poor serve becomes an instant death sentence instead of setting up an attack. The quality serve has been misunderstood by you as my endorsement as an attacking stroke. I never said that. You and others claim I had said that, which is a distortion of fact. Again, a quality low serve in doubles is a pre-condition to an attack.

You should know better what was posted ... perfect and irretrievable service - only returnable with illegal stroke??? or not able to understand due to ...

Well, I don't have much time and not interested in arguing with you on this. You should know better than anybody else about your own opinions.

Honestly, I come here to learn from other people experiences about this game I like. Luckily, I believe I know a bit about this game to separate the good stuff from what should be ignored.

[viver]

Thanks Chai,

I can see that I am not the only one with such views on service. There are more people here with same opinion about it.

Like you said, let the readers decide.

We can go back to the tactical issues regarding the 21x3.

I dont believe you really understand Viver's view, as it all down to you and many have decided to class the underarm serve stroke is an attacking stroke; then later you again argue underarm serve stroke could produce "attacking shots".

The winning shot can be any kind of shots that is produced by any strokes; but IS winnning shot an attacking shot? What is attacking shot?

I can understand the reason of why Viver's has been written so rigorously about this subject as he has gone through the formal training and he has the right to question and pursuit the idea that is opposite of what he has learned formally. By the way serve, and return of serve is the 1st impression you made on your opponent (ok It is a page out of Badminton England here!)

[Loh]

My apologies for misreading your reply. Maybe I was associating it with the example too much.

Still, I wouldn't classify an underarm stroke as an attacking shot even if it causes the opponent difficulty to return (outcome of the shot?). A good defence shot should not only return the shuttle to the other side of net, but also allows the defender to balance the rally.

PG return shot, in my opinion was an excellent piece of defensive work. Not only the shot placement was superb but also caused the opponent trouble to return it. Excellent material to learn from.

I agree, and have maintained, that an underarm stroke does not produce an attacking shot when it is first struck and it is in an upward flight or trajectory (unless it is a flick or powerful drive that can win a point, as we know that such shots could also be countered successfully by the opponent.) But if the receiver is unable to reach the shot in time and the shot has now travelled below net level, it will be difficult for him to attack the shot. At this stage, the original defensive shot has now turn "offensive" (a term which I think is a better one than "attacking", as introduced by one poster, as it may well cause problems to the receiver and even win a point.

So, instead of using the very 'sensitive' word "attack", a term like "offensive" might be more acceptable.

[taneepak]

In that case, you do agree that underarm serve is not attacking stroke ? and underarm serve cannot produce "attacking shots"?

WIll you agree that the "good" receiver is always prepared mentally and in position to attack the server's serve?

Will you agree that the server is at disadvantage in term of who has better opportunity to attack first?

Your first para is irrelevant because I never said or intended to say anything close to what you are trying to put in my mouth. What I said and what I am saying now is that the low serve is used to initiate an attacking game. The only attacking serve is the drive serve which has been put in cold storage for a long time after the ascendance of the low serve.
No, it is unlikely a good receiver can ever attack a quality low serve. It is technically not possible because there is such a thing as reaction or response time of the receiver. I don't know the exact average reaction time in badminton, but in automobile emergency braking the human response or reaction time is between 1.6 seconds to 4 seconds. The serve would have passed the tape with this time, and if you add the time for your arm to move to meet the shuttle from a quality low serve it would be at least 4 inches below the tape, that is assuming you are almost toeing the front service line. If you stand even 6" behind the front service line you would have no alternative but to return the serve with an underarm stroke. And if your quality low serve is backed by a killer flick-serve the receiver's reaction time will be even longer due to the "respect" factor of your flick-serve. All these assume that you the receiver do not cheat by rushing the net before the shuttle was delivered.
The server serving low in both singles and doubles are better placed to attack than the receiver. The receiver merely reacts and is entirely dependent on the type and quality of the serve of the opponent. This is why all attacking singles players today almost always use the low serve. Defensive singles players like Roslin Hashim prefers the high serve. In doubles the low serve is also the opening move to an attacking game.

[CWB001]

in automobile emergency braking the human response or reaction time is between 1.6 seconds to 4 seconds.

Remind me never to be on the same road as you.

Do Hong Kong drivers keep their eyes shut until they hear the sound of something hitting the front of their car?

Most humans can react within 0.25 seconds and about 10% within 5/100 of a second.