User Tag List

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 52 to 68 of 81
  1. #52
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Jakarta
    Posts
    247
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    kwun or somebody make a website about this let the ibf know that the fans don't like with the new system score

  2. #53
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    sf, nyc
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2NDround
    Have anyone any data to indicates that TV coverage and sponsorship is on the increase?
    it's way too soon to tell. it will take years to grow.

  3. #54
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    2,360
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2NDround
    Having gone through all the posts, I think the majority of us agreed that the NSS system is not good for the game. However I think most of us also agreed that NSS may still be acceptable if the objectives of increase TV coverage, and increase sponsorships is achieved. Have anyone any data to indicates that TV coverage and sponsorship is on the increase?
    Agreed! The NSS was there to save some time for TV coverage...

  4. #55
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KL & Sg
    Posts
    5,315
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think it is backward to go back to the old system. If the current system is too short, increase it to 25 (but WS to remain 21), but keep the point-per-rally. 5 sets are too much for badminton. Do you really want matches to last for at least 2 hours like tennis?

  5. #56
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
    Posts
    310
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taneepak
    FYI, the NSS was given a one year trial period before it was officially adopted this May, 2006, at the same time the 2006 Thomas Cup Challenge Round was played in Japan. It was adopted with 100% of the votes. So, if you must blame some one, go after your own national badminton association officials who voted for the new system. All the votes from Canada, USA, Japan, Denmark, England, etc., etc. voted for the NSS. The best way to revert back to the old system is to go after your own officials and curse them for selling you out.

    Before the start of this season my club secretary wrote to the chief executive of badminton england about the NSS and the vote for it. In his reply he revealed that England did NOT actually vote for the system as the council of the IBF was the body that held the vote, and England has no member on this council. Badminton England were only able to ask for more time to consider the decision at the IBF AGM, and by then the decision was already made. And the chief executive also said Badminton England only became aware of the proposals to change to the NSS in November 2005 - so how was there a one year trial period Taneepak?

    I therefore would like to know who the members of this council are, as these are the people that are responsible for voting this in, and potentially decimating my local league. Many players may be lost in my area as they will not have this system imposed on them.

  6. #57
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
    Posts
    310
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have done my research...if indeed the IBF council voted for the system, then these are the people that voted:

    Dr Kang Young Joong - Korea
    Korn Thapparansi - Thailand
    Punch Gunalan - Malaysia
    Torsten Berg - Denmark
    Robin Bryant - Australia
    Rudy Hartono - Indonesia
    Roger Johansson - Sweden
    Cephas Lar - Nigeria
    Paisan Rangsikitpho - USA
    Gustavo Salazar - Peru
    Tong Wai Lun - Hong Kong
    VK Verma - India
    Erak Weikesinghe - Sri Lanka
    Edgar Aglipay - Philippines
    Bang Soo Hyun - USA (?)
    Emilia-Stavroula Founta - Greece
    Peter Gacheru - Kenya
    Raj Gaya - Mauritius
    Puzant Kassabian - Bulgaria
    Dieter Kespohl - Germany
    Horst Kullnigg - Austria
    Li Lingwei - China
    Anne Smillie - Scotland
    Wayne Somers - Canada
    Junichiro Yamada - Japan
    Steven Yeo - Singapore

    So no representative from England.

  7. #58
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    so adjust number of points to fit 5 sets, i.e 5x15pt in rally point system.
    I just think that due to the unexpected nature of games in rally point system you need to allow more space for a player to recover from bad start / bad set. so 5 sets can be very good for that matter.

  8. #59
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Bonn
    Posts
    195
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yuval_ba
    so adjust number of points to fit 5 sets, i.e 5x15pt in rally point system.
    I just think that due to the unexpected nature of games in rally point system you need to allow more space for a player to recover from bad start / bad set. so 5 sets can be very good for that matter.

    I agree with that. Rally point system and 5 x 15pt will be much better, or maybe even 7x11 pt : then you have to play a minimum of 44 rallies, by now 2x21=42 rallies.

    The problem with 5x15 or 7x11 or so is that the time length will be more unpredictable then with 3x21.

    But like in tennis, the more (and shorter) games the more exciting points you get.

  9. #60
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    2,360
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the Old Scoring System is still the best though. Although sometimes it takes 1.5 hours to 2 hours. It makes the game more interesting.

  10. #61
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,610
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My only complain about the rally point system would be the length of the double game. I agree that the points of double games should increase to somewhere above 25pts to extend to length of the game while single could remain at 21pts.

  11. #62
    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 andymcg
    Before the start of this season my club secretary wrote to the chief executive of badminton england about the NSS and the vote for it. In his reply he revealed that England did NOT actually vote for the system as the council of the IBF was the body that held the vote, and England has no member on this council. Badminton England were only able to ask for more time to consider the decision at the IBF AGM, and by then the decision was already made. And the chief executive also said Badminton England only became aware of the proposals to change to the NSS in November 2005 - so how was there a one year trial period Taneepak?

    I therefore would like to know who the members of this council are, as these are the people that are responsible for voting this in, and potentially decimating my local league. Many players may be lost in my area as they will not have this system imposed on them.
    Re the one year trial period, pls refer to the Chairman's speech at the May, 2006 AGM held in Tokyo. All member nations were asked to conduct trials from May, 2005.
    I think England has the max. votes. Whether England chooses to cast its votes directly or through proxies, England did have the votes. Any change to the laws of badminton requires members to vote. If the 21-rally point system was voted in by the IBF Council alone, this would be invalid. There are 149 member nations, each with varying number of votes. There are also a lot of proxy votes, and most of them are blank proxy votes without speicific ways given to the persons given the proxies on how to vote.
    I think the IBF (BWF) works through the 5 Continental Confederations, who in turn work directly with their respective continental member nations.

  12. #63
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,527
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In any AGM votes are required to pass or rescind a resolution. If you have some experience in corporate AGMs you should know how to get the votes you want. Most of the ground work is done before the AGM. Proxies are worth thier weight in gold, especially if they are substantial enough.
    It so happens that I have some experience in this field, from company AGMs to Incorporated Owners of an apartment complex. Sometimes you make enemies, especially when you get the proxies you want.
    But if you control 51% of all the votes, all your work behind the scene to get enough proxies to topple the main shareholder is futile. That is why swing votes are important. In politics, swing votes are king-makers.

  13. #64
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
    Posts
    310
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote from email from Eric Brown, acting chief executive of Badminton England at the time:

    "Although I am Acting Chief Executive my roots are in the grass roots of
    the game we have made every effort to engage with the public on this
    matter. I sympathise with your views but I think it is important to
    firstly spell out how this decision came about.

    The History Behind the Decision:

    We became aware of firm proposals to change to rally points in November
    2005 and in the December Magazine, which followed, not only did we run 3
    pages on the subject but also in my own article at the front of the
    magazine I requested views from members. Very few came in.

    The matter was also referred to in my article in the November Update to
    council (which is circulated to all counties) and discussed at the
    November Council Meeting where it was agreed that we should not campaign
    against the changes, (partly because at the time we did not know the
    exact nature of them), but should try to exert influence wherever we
    could. The council are the democratically elected members from the
    counties who have a responsibility to provide the key communication link
    between the Counties and Badminton England.

    At the same time we put a poll on our website and again asked for
    views. Our postbag produced a very neutral response although the poll
    showed 70% of those who clicked the button were against.

    The council of the International Badminton Federation (IBF) agreed to
    adopt the new Laws in May, and as we have no member on this council we
    had no opportunity to vote for or against these changes. At the IBF AGM
    the only opportunity we had was to voice our opinion on the floor of the
    meeting and ask for more time to consider the matter. The vote that took
    place at the AGM was to allow Council to change the Laws annually rather
    than every four years at present."


    I think the chief executive would know if his association or a representative of his assocation had a vote. Are there any minutes of the meeting available to show who voted?

  14. #65
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    calgary
    Posts
    112
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i have never heard so many excuses for losing in my life...

    you don't lose because of the scoring system...you lose because you made more errors then your opponent, forced or unforced.

    the new scoring system works because it weeds out the players that don't have the mental toughness to win, only the stamina to rally. less mistakes = better chance of winning.

    how many of you have actually tried the NSS? i agree that the doubles games are quicker so yes, going to 25 points might be a good compromise, but going back to the old scoring only rewards failure.

  15. #66
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Basement Boiler Room
    Posts
    22,118
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i believe there are plus and minus in both scoring system. Yes, there are more hope for a come back under the OSS BUT your opponents think that way too. Every player loves to come back from behind but i bet the same player who is leading would hate their opponent come from behind. So, a smart player adapt to win. So, isn't a smart deserve to win?

  16. #67
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    sf, nyc
    Posts
    129
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cooler
    So, isn't a smart deserve to win?
    the superior combination of intelligence and athleticism on a given day, deserves to win that day.

  17. #68
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    alaska, fairbanks
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default More changes please....

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofabeach
    i have never heard so many excuses for losing in my life...

    you don't lose because of the scoring system...you lose because you made more errors then your opponent, forced or unforced.

    the new scoring system works because it weeds out the players that don't have the mental toughness to win, only the stamina to rally. less mistakes = better chance of winning.

    how many of you have actually tried the NSS? i agree that the doubles games are quicker so yes, going to 25 points might be a good compromise, but going back to the old scoring only rewards failure.
    Hi Sun... Thanks for being a critic... I totally agree with you. but but but... would you let the badminton association representing the world make changes to the classic badminton culture just like that and not fret when it actually doesnt show up as any good use to the game??? I dont see a reason why I shouldnt comment. You even suggested that going to 25 points is a good idea... i.e., you actually thought about it, that the current system isnt the best one, my comment was on the association making unreasonable changes and not providing or using feedback from the whole of the badminton... the representatives, the players, and ofcourse the fans us... Yeah you can make infinite changes but for a reason that its better for the game in practice not on paper...
    BCs the only better place that allows us to share our feelings about badminton... So I wanted to let this thread dedicated for someone to frown just like me, Its just a start, a good feedback from BC for the representation...

    Thanks Ctjcad Ive seen the new naming convention.... looks like a new lame idea came into their minds now... naming the cool IBF as something similar to BMW or WWF... From now on Ill have to hang around talking about badminton representation as WBF something that will sound as a BMW or WWF for someone for sure....

    Even look at their website... I think even a kid can do a better job at it... Yeah badminton needs a change though to grab attention...
    hiccups.. excuse me...

    Quote Originally Posted by chikkubhai
    Who is this careless guy in WBF who gets all kinda crazy stupid ideas like the recent 21 points system (already adding to old problems of judgements), now the coool name IBF is changed something similar to BMW; these guys are messing up with the traditional classic badminton culture... As usual other country representatives will just nod their heads accepting what ever is implemented worrying being left over or may be avoid politics.... Im waiting for more of such stupid changes for no good reason... god please save badminton.... They better introduce some useful tools like camera for linesman and so on... I never knew I will have to talk about badminton as WBF which sounds like WWF to others.....

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 21 rally-point scoring system: Is it really better to Attack?
    By chris-ccc in forum Techniques / Training
    Replies: 448
    : 11-24-2011, 08:16 AM
  2. I vote for 15 point rally system for Olympics and other majors
    By maximR in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 5
    : 01-20-2011, 04:36 PM
  3. 21 Rally Point Scoring System
    By Break-My-String in forum Coaching Forum
    Replies: 0
    : 11-08-2006, 05:47 AM
  4. New Scoring System (21-Rally point system)
    By MikeJ in forum Jonas Rasmussen Forum
    Replies: 21
    : 06-05-2006, 06:03 AM
  5. Mixed responses to 21-point rally scoring system
    By ants in forum Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating
    Replies: 50
    : 04-26-2006, 04:40 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
  •