Results 18 to 34 of 89
03-20-2007, 12:08 AM #18Originally Posted by 2cents
03-20-2007, 12:12 AM #19
Like I said you don't have to win the OG/WC to be a great player. That's just limiting the number of theoretical great players which is stupid, and I agree with that. But don't look down on the OG/WC because of that. Just because you can be great without winning these touraments doesn't mean you don't have to be great to win them.
03-20-2007, 01:34 AM #20
I agree that takes less to win an Olympic gold compared to a Super Series tournament because of the quotas imposed on each country, less entries and no qualifying rounds.
However winning an Olympic gold once or a World Championship once doesn't necessarily make that player in the category of the greats of the game. I wouldn't apply the term "great" lightly to any player. One would have to be dominant in the game by winning many tournaments and not just one big tournament such as All England, the Olympics or the World Championship. Is a player like Alan Budi Kusuma, winner of Olympic gold in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, considered a great player? Alan Budi Kusuma has never won an All England or World Championships. Just because he won a highly prestigious badminton gold at the Olympics doesn't make him great. To be great one would have to look at the totality of the player's career achivements. Similarly Icuk Sugiarto, winner of 1983 World Championships, cannot be considered great either because that was his only major badminton title although no doubt it was a big one. Arguably the All England is most prestigious open badminton tournament being the oldest badminton tournament by far but does winning this event once put you in the league of the greats of badminton? If yes, then players such as Pullela Gopichand and Muhammad Hafiz Hashim would be considered great players. Don't get me wrong by saying they are not great doesn't mean that they are not good. No doubt they are good players but they are not great.
No doubt the Olympics is the most prestigious badminton event arguably however that doesn't mean it is the most competitive or tough title to win. It is only prestigious because it is held every 4 years and the winner is considered as a sporting national hero in their respective countries. Badminton powerhouses such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Denmark are Olympic dwarves because they struggle to get an Olympic medal let alone a gold medal. So winning an Olympic gold for players from these countries is th highest honour they can get and the publicity is enormous to the nation. The audience would not only be the badminton audience but fans of other sports would also be exposed to the fact that the nation has got gold at the Olympics when most possibly all the other sports couldn't produce any medals. Even with Olympic giants like China the exposure of an Olympic gold medalist is enormous. The gold medalists is an automatic national hero.
The attention on Super Series winners would be much less than the Olympics and this is evident in the number of journalists covering the Olympics. So the greatness of an Olympic gold medalist is more to do with hype rather than the competitive nature of the badminton Olympic event.
03-20-2007, 01:37 AM #21Originally Posted by valen
03-20-2007, 01:41 AM #22
is it OG/WC the event to prove they are talent??????? how about the world no.1 player along the years but without world championship medal??
is it call suck if that player didnt get any champion on WC???
03-20-2007, 02:09 AM #23Originally Posted by sabathiel
03-20-2007, 02:31 AM #24Originally Posted by stevenhyx
sabathiel, I still hold my view that WC/OG are the most competitive and the hardest to win badminton events under current circumstances. 2cents has made the point that it's the players who enter to an event determine the competitiveness of it. The point seems to support your view as WC/OG has country quotas while SS events not. However, I have already argued otherwise. Due to the prestige and the hypes of WC/OG,
(a) It tends to attract more top players than any other events. For each SS event, there are always a couple or more top players who are potential winners in this coming WC/OG who skip it. For WC/OG, however, all those top players will definitely participate unless for very valid reason (e.g., death of father, injury, or not qualified - it's quite unlikely that a potential winner not qualified except for VERY VERY rare cases like TG/CW). It's more important that an event managed to attract as many top players as possible instead of opening it to everybody and yet half of the top players are there. It's the quality, not the quantity of the participants that determine the competitiveness.
Besides, don't forget that SS also has restriction in participations, except that it's less strict than WC/OG - no country quotas, but having limited slots and players have to be qualified by their world rankings. Therefore, SS events are not genuinely "open" events.
Having more countries participating in an event has its plus points. Apart from what the IBF wants - to promote the sports in more countries, we spectators prefer greater competitiveness among countries. While you guys hated the country quotas posed to WC/OG, some of our fellow forum posters sit in another extreme of the spectrum by urging IBF to pose country quotas to SS events as well (see earlier postings during AE), as they are sick of seeing Chinese dominations that have made their badminton watching experience far less exciting (e.g., I had no interest in watching the WD match because there are always CHN vs. CHN).
(2) I have also raised the point about the psychological effect on the players. Players tend to get nervous easier in prestiguous events as compared to those "just-another-SS-event". The additional requirement in mental toughness makes WC/OG the events that are tougher to win.
Last edited by Inky2000; 03-20-2007 at 02:36 AM.
03-20-2007, 03:13 AM #25
KKK/TBH have lifted the record to 2-1 over CW/TG bro.....2 wins straight in Malaysia open and Swiss open.....
When CW/TG will beat the MAlaysia Pairs????in WC or OG????
y must WC or OG then only call they are the best......
for example football in olympics seems like not popular as world cup.....
if win olympic is it call as world champion or the best in the world????
y must wait until OC or WC???
03-20-2007, 03:18 AM #26
why the players probably want to win the WC and OG is cuz of its "title"..
Come on who will remember 3 times Malaysian Open champion 50 or 60 years from now (except for his own country probably...)... if LCW wins WC, he will be regarded as a World Champion.... thats probably what the players wan it to be....
As for Msians, we want the titles so badly cuz as one of the badminton greats, MAS HAS YET TO WIN THAT TWO TOURNAMENTS!!!!
2003: Wong Choon Hann finished runner-up (WC)
1996: Rashid Sidek finished runner-up (OG)
Of course they want to end the drought badly...
For Malaysians, winning the WC and OG can cure back the disappointments even if they lost 10 tournaments in a row.... For us, the important is CONSISTENCY!!!!
03-20-2007, 03:20 AM #27
Rexy came up with the statement saying that he will only regard them as a great pair if they win the Olympics next year is clearly a challenge for them...
That is what they are working for... Their target is the Olympics...
Rexy is just merely setting a sight for them to see and for them to grap it that's all... If Rexy only cares about money, he wouldn't even care about the results of our pair now as long as BAM is still filling his POCKET!!!!!
03-20-2007, 04:19 AM #28Originally Posted by Inky2000
I don't think the prestige and the hypes of the Olympics and WC qualifies as a legitimate reason.
Consider this in the 90s Indonesia ruled the men's singles in badminton. Indonesia had Alan Budi Kusuma, Hermawan Susanto, Ardy B. Wiranata, Joko Supriyanto, Heriyanto Arbi, Hendrawan, Marleve Mainaky, Bambang Supriyanto etc who all are about the same calibre. If the Olympics only allow 2-3 of those players to compete how can you say that the Olympics is the most competitive and the hardest tournament to win? Obviously not all the best players from Indonesia in this case have a chance to slug it out to win the gold medal. Similarly today China has Lin Dan, Bao Chun Lai, Chen Jin, Chen Yu and even maybe Chen Hong (if he didn't retire) who are pretty much on the elite level of Chinese badminton. How can you say the winner of the Olympics is the best player if some of these elite Chinese players are not allowed to compete due to the quota system? So the quota system leads to a diminishing quality and not just diminishing quantity. It is quality and quantity that are important considerations here. The quantity of quality players at closed tournaments are less than open tournaments.
At least the Super Series Opens have a qualifying round and allows for players like KKK/TBH to participate (I think it was in the Malaysian Open or Korean Open they had to go through the qualifying rounds and eventually won the tournament). Simon Santoso who made the Swiss Open final also had to go through the qualifying rounds. Imagine how many matches a player has to win in order to get the title if one plays from the qualifying rounds? Imagine how hard it is to win and how competitive the tournament is. Doesn't this require supreme menta toughness unlike the limited matches one has to win at the Olympics to get the gold. In addition to the total number of matches one has to win (including the qualifying rounds) the title in a SS tournamet consider if one player who made the finals had to go through all his previous rounds in 3 game matches. Imagine the stress and stamina he has to have. The Olympics have less rounds than the Super Series rounds. Having said that I consider the All England more prestigious and more competitive than the Olympics or even the World Championships (especially now the WC is held every year).
Players sometimes skip the SS tournament because there are numerous SS tournaments and they are held every year. So if Taufik skipped the All England it is not because the All England is not highly regarded but because Taufik thinks he still can go to the All England the year after. Players do not skip the Olympics because it is held only every 4 years not because the Olympics is more prestigious than the All England. 4 years is a long time in badminton and one's form can change drastically in 4 years time as well new and better players will substantially emerge in 4 years time unlike 1 years time for All England.
No tournament is considered genuinely "open" events because not everybody's desire to participate can be accomodated but relatively speaking SS tournaments are more "open" tournaments than the Olympics. So when we say "open" tournaments we can only speak in comparison to "closed" tournaments.
How would you see a victory by a Chinese player such as Lin Dan at the Beijing 2008 Olympics at home ground compared to a victory by Lin Dan at the neutral ground of All England? At least England is not a badminton powerhouse so this makes the winner from badminton powerhouses like Malaysia, China, Indonesia, Denmark etc more of an achievement compared to winning on your home ground.
Last edited by sabathiel; 03-20-2007 at 04:24 AM.
03-20-2007, 04:32 AM #29
ya..............sabathiel, u straight to the main point...........
u give a clearer view between wc and oc
03-20-2007, 04:38 AM #30
The important thing is that I'm not looking back to the previous WCs but the upcoming WC, since the theme of this thread (at least at the earlier stage) is MAS supporters' hope for KKK/TBH to win WC/OG. My points have been very clear. I posted the "cast list" (actually those who skipped the events) of last year's 4*-6* GP events and WC for your comparison. It has proven that WC's "cast list" is the most impressive one because all the top players (I define it as the small group of players were potential world champions) would not want to miss it. However, for GP events, there were always at least two top players who skipped individual events (AE is almost as prestiguous as WC and therefore it's a special case, but not other GP events).
I argue that an event which can attract more of of such potential world champions (or OG gold medalists) are more competitive events then those who attract less. That is, I'm looking into its eventual cast list, not its pre-determined qualification rules. Therefore, when you wrote "Players do not skip the Olympics because it is held only every 4 years not because the Olympics is more prestigious than the All England ...", you were actually supporting my view - WC/OG could attract more top players (based on my definition as stated above) then other events and therefore the quality of the competition is higher.
I have also elaborated the mental issues twice and I'm not going to repeat it for the third time.
03-20-2007, 04:48 AM #31
Considering the limited numbers of matches (rounds) a player needs to get to the finals compared to Open SS tournaments, how worn out would that player be in the finals. In the qualifying rounds of a SS event it is common for a player to play more than once in the same event in a day. This can be considered tough for any player.
03-20-2007, 04:53 AM #32
good rebate over here......hehhe..........
03-20-2007, 05:05 AM #33
Rebate? Do you mean "debate"?
03-20-2007, 05:15 AM #34
sori debate............hahahhahahha......calm down the"rebate" first.......hahhahahha
By jbchiong in forum German Open / All England / Swiss Open 2007Replies: 0: 03-12-2007, 09:54 PM
By yannie in forum Malaysia Open / Korea Open 2007Replies: 0: 01-25-2007, 01:48 PM
By Shabok in forum German Open / All England / Swiss Open 2005Replies: 38: 01-10-2006, 05:07 AM
By kwun in forum Swiss Open 2006 / German Open 2006Replies: 4: 01-04-2006, 05:24 PM
By kwun in forum Swiss Open 2004Replies: 0: 02-25-2004, 02:11 PM