Taufik was the first one who claimed that he will win if he wants to. But it is NOT true since he has lost to Chen Jin and never won against him. So a guy claiming he will win if he wants to, must meet two criteria: 1) has won at least one tournament. This is easy 2) has beaten everyone whom he met. This is the real meaning he can win if he wants to. As long as there is one player out there, Taufik lost but never won, then he should not be qualified to say he can win, simply there is no proof at all. Taufik is NOT the guy who can win if he wants to, then who else are qualified? Lin Dan - Lin Dan won a lot of tournaments, and did he lost to anyone whom he never won? As far as I know, there is none. So Lin Dan could claim he will win if he wants to, even though you or we, don't believe that, but he can say that, because he has the proof to win, and the proof to beat everyone he has met. Chen Jin - Is this guy able to claim he's the one who will win if he wants to? I haven't checked all the records, he may be qualified too. I'm not good at rember head to head results, need to check Chen Hong - need to check Peter Gade - need to check Lee CW - need to check Bao CL - need to check Taufik - No! He lost to Chen Jin and never won Wong CH - No! he lost to Lin Dan and never won Could some experts here clarify these players' qualifications to be self-claimed he will win if he wants?
Even a new comer can claim he will win if he wants to, as long as he has not lost to anyone. But once he lost to anyone and has not won anything back, then that disapproves he can win at least. So if Taufik wants to say he will win if he wants to, he needs to beat Chen Jin first. (or maybe other players too, I'm not sure). Before beating Chen Jin, there is only proof he will lose if he meets Chen Jin. He can not say he can beat Chen Jin if he wants to now, simply because he lost to him and never won. If they had never met, we could believe him, if Taufik had beaten Chen Jin just 1 time, we could also believe him. But how to believe him winning someone he lost all but never won.
I think what Taufik meant by that was if he put's his mind to it he can beat anyone and win anything. It's probably true as I have never seen such a skilled player in my time. I agree he is cocky/bordering arrogant but oh boy can he back it up. He is the finest player to watch when he is focused and I think he will leave a huge void in the Badminton world when he retires. With Taufik you have to take the bad with the good but when he is good he is the master.
That's purely built on your emotion and enthusiasm What I said, is based on data and statistics. Everyone wants to claim if he put's his mind to it he can beat anyone. But the truth is there are people out there he has never beat, but only lost to. You can claim something that's proved. That's perfect. You can even claim something that has not been proved. That's the thing we need to see. But you just cannot claim something that has been disapproved. That's against facts.
If you want to argue by logic, why limit the pool to competitive players? None of these players have played against me, so they can't claim they will win if he wants to, because there is no proof. Not that I think of myself as one of the greatest players on earth, but I can argue from fact, that if A wins against B, B wins against C, it doesn't necessariy imply A will win against C. Therefore as long as there is one badminton player on earth LD has not played and won, he can't be said to be world #1 MS, because there is the possibility, however remote, that some unranked, non-pro player will beat LD. Absurd? You bet. I'd consider the statement as figures of speech, not logically true statements, and won't bother to apply logic here.
I didn't limit the pool to competitive players, how did you get that? Since they have not played with you, they of course, can claim they will win if they want to. If you have not lost to anyone, you can claim you can beat anyone too. You just simply don't understand what I said. I have never used transition law at all, your conclusion for me was absurd. I didn't ask Lin Dan to beat everyone on the earth. How did you draw that conclusion. I only said, the guy who claims he will win if he wants to, has to beat the one whom he has lost to. That guy, don't need to be the number 1, and don't need to play everyone either. You got to understand what I said first, you totally misunderstood everything.
my take on TH. The situation is that most people overlook other unfilled promises by TH because TH had won the OG, WC and AG. (even tho TH had never promised to win OG). The reason why TH has high success ratio in winning biggest the tournaments because he forgo most other lesser tournaments so he can maximize training and focus, and minimize injury going into those big tournaments. If u bet all your money in one big horse race instead of spreading the same money across several horse races, your chance of winning is higher. It's not magical, it is basic sound risk management. Right now, TH rival is LD. If u remember all the LD vs TH meets, most if not all of these meets involved some kind of pre-game controverises. TH is a betting man so he would do things that would increase his odd of winnings, even outside the court. TH knows LD (basically 90% chinese players) weakness is mental, that's where TH like to work on pre-game softening his opponents. If the situation transform to being unfavorable to TH, he would fold or quit ASAP to prevent prolonging the embarassment (HKO, JO), and to prevent showing more of his cards to his opponent's coach.
I heard TH did gaurantee a gold medal at the OG. I'm pretty sure thats what started all this. He gauranteed a win at arguably the most prestigous event in badminton and made good with his promise.
I don't know much about the legends before Zhao Jianhua. IMHO, I think the only person who can say that is Zhao Jianhua at his prime. I think TH is not even close.
right... another Taufik bashing thread, why not just change the title to "Taufik the cocky man who claimed that he can win anything is a big FAT LIE"? Can we please stop all these pointless arguments, dont you think there are enough of these thread already? Taufik won the title that everybody dream of.. that is OG and he did it with grace.. just let it rest please.. By the way if you want to argue about statistic... the chances of him saying he will win AG06 and actually won it is highly unlikely, so u can rest assure that his victory was no luck or coincident.. he defied everything and went on to grab gold despite losing to LD on 2 occasion before the final, isn't that good enough already? What is there more to say about his about his own words? Please respect him for what he had achieved, that would be much appreciated. Thank you.
I'll reset the argument then. Your interpretation 'x can win if he wants to' seems to mean, For all player y that has played with x, there is at least one game where x wins over y. This only deals with 'can' but not 'want to' part of the statement. The usual usage in English will render a different logical statement: For all player y that has played with x, for all games where x proclaims his intention to win before the game, he wins over y. The latter has different truth values from the former. If I don't claim to want to win against y, I can lose every game to y and still claim I can win if I want to. The fact that I lost all games doesn't matter because I didn't 'want to' win in the first place. If I 'want to', well, it never happened, so it has not been disproved. There is no logical contradiction here. TH is clever to make his statement this way. If he simply states 'he can win' then he needs to win at least one game against y, as you formulate. There is a Chinese term for such victory: A-Q mental victory
I'm quite surprised with the responses to this thread. The main purpose of this thread is to find out who can brag he will win if he wants. Taufik is just an example. I'm not against Taufik, in fact, I'm a diehard fan of Taufik. It is just because I like him very much, so I checked whether or not he should say "he will win if he wants to". Then I found out he should not say that, because there are people out there, he lost to but never won yet. Then comes the main purpose of this thread who can brag "he will win if he wants to". My two criteria are perfect to determine. This claim doesn't mean the guy has to be the greatest player of all time. Zhao Jianhua might be qualified for bragging (I need to check), but I'm sure there are also several players now can brag that too. As for mettayogi, you haven't won any tournament yet. I have to say sorry to you that I have to ignore your post, you showed you cannot read, cannot think, cannot reason, what can I say? This thread has nothing to do with OG, AG or any other xGs. This thread is for finding out who are those people who: 1) won at least 1 tournament 2) has beat anyone at least one time whom he's met before It is clear that 1) he doesn't need to beat everyone in this planet. 2) he doesn't need to even have a winning record against anyone. Thanks, please don't go off topic PS Why I am a diehard Taufik fan? I'm the only one predicted that Lin Dan would lost to Taufik Hidayat in the Germany open. If I'm not his diehard fan, who is?
As for Simp84, it is you who not only treat players differently, and also treat matches differently. Comparing me, I think you are quite biased. My way to determine who can brag "he will win if he wants to", is fair to every player, and equal to every matches. I used Lin Dan vs Taufik as an example. But they are not the topic of this thread. I have found out that Taufik has lost to Chen Jin, but never won yet. Simp84, if you think Taufik is better than Lin Dan, could you find out that: are there anyone whom Lin Dan has lost to, but never won yet?
In my argument I have never mentioned who is the greatest, nor did I say Taufik is superior to LD.. I just stated that Taufik defied the odds in winning AG06 despite the prediction was totally against him, losing to LD 3x prior to the final (including jap open).. ok lets take that event as p<0.125 (well he was totally out of shape & in order for him to get beat every player I would say we give him 50% probability of beating them each of them.. they are Bao, LCW and LD.. therefore 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.125) Now moving on back to OG, this man was unseeded and wasn't expected to win at all, lets give him the chance of winning is p<0.05 again (he was expected to be kick out in early round as he was not actively in training) Now mutiply them both together - 0.125 x 0.05 = 0.00625.. This man claiming twice to win both event and the probability of that occuring is 0.625%, and yet he had done both? I would not consider this a bias argument, maybe I was a little bit bias with the olympic probability of winning, however even if you increase the probabilty of him winning the OG and multiply both of them together it is still under less than 5%.. It is very brave of him to claim something that will occur in less than 5% chance.. conincidence? Dont think so.. Taufik is arragont and he live up to his statement, I congradulate him for that, and I dont think it matters whether he beaten CJ or not, end of the day he had established his goals in badminton and no one can take that away I guess... Peace
Simp84, you are still talking about different things. This thread is to find out who can beat all the opponents he met before so that he can brag he will win if he wants to. Nothing about OG, AG; Not about Lin Dan, Taufik only. Nothing to do with whether Taufik is arrogant and lives up to his statement.
This is a most absurd premise. Just because he has never beat Chen Jin, has he stated that he can win a specific match against him? Not to my knowledge. If he then makes that claim and fails to beat him, you might have a point. Taufik did not claim he will beat every single person he comes up against, only that he will win if he wants to.
