Results 52 to 68 of 89
03-21-2007, 01:53 AM #52Originally Posted by sabathiel
Originally Posted by tjl_vanguard
Last edited by phaarix; 03-21-2007 at 01:55 AM.
03-21-2007, 02:01 AM #53Originally Posted by azabaz_ipoh
Agassi is considered a great player because he won 8 Grand slam titles and one of the few players who has won all the Grand Slam events played on different surfaces. So it is no surprise if you consider Agassi to be a great player because many would disagree with you. It would be a point of dispute if you say Agassi is greater than Sampras. One could indeed say that because Agassi has won the French Open once when Sampras never won at Rolland Garros. However you are not saying Agassi is greater than Sampras so there is no argument here. Pete Sampras and Roger Federer are also considered the greats of tennis. The argument is in the contention of who is greater Agassi, Sampras or Federer. Although in the case of Federer the jury is still out because he has the potential to be the greatest ever if he keeps on the way he is going and breaks all the records.
03-21-2007, 02:24 AM #54Originally Posted by phaarix
Do you think a good player can win tournaments if he wasn't fit or is low in stamina? Before you become great you must be good first. If to be a good player one has to be fit then it follows that great players must also be fit. Sure you might not remember a great player for his stamina but it is his fitness that wins him the titles. Could he have won many tournaments without being physically fit? So it is the effect of being fit that you remember that is being able to play a consistent match in 3 games at least once a day to win the match. All great players are physically fit that is why they can endure rubber games and still come out on top. Imagine what they would be like if they were not fit. A fit Taufik is great but a less than fit Taufik will not do very well.
Mia Audina is another example. In terms of playing style and stroke variation she is a great player but she often loses in 3 games to the more superior phsyically fit players (especially the Chinese). If Mia was as fit as the Chinese women she would no doubt win many more titles and deserved to be called a great player and not just a very good player.
At the elite level most if not all players are at the same techical prowess but it is fitness that determines who wins the tournaments. Taufik is a very good example. When he is well prepared he can defeat Lin Dan with ease. Remember the WC 05 when he beat Lin Dan in straight sets. When he is not prepared and hence not fit he loses to Lin Dan. So fitness/stamina might not be a HUGE factor but it is still an important factor. All things being equal it is fitness that makes a champion.
03-21-2007, 02:46 AM #55Originally Posted by Inky2000
In judging that there are only a handful of players that can be categorised as potential winners and hold the tournament's prestige by their participation in the tournament you are neglecting the element of unpredictability in sport which often occurs. If we judge a tournament's prestige simply by looking at the participation of a select few which you consider potential winners then we are not being fair to all the other players. Who would have predicted Pullela Gopichand winning the All England 2001? What about Muhammad Hafiz Hashim winning All England 2003? The 17 year old Taufik making the finals in 1999? The 20 year old Icuk Sugiarto winning the 1983 WC? Ji XinPeng winning the 2000 Olympics? The 31 year old Poul Erik Hoyer Larsen winning All England and the Olympics? Fleming Delfs winning the 1977 WC? Camilla Martin winning the 1999 WC and the 2002 All England (by beating 4 Chinese players in a row)? Ronald Susilo beating Lin Dan in the 2004 Olympics? All those surprises seem to invalidate your argument that there are clear potential winners and their participation in a tournament makes the tournament prestigious.
If your theory is valid than the most prestigious tournament would be a tournament where there are only a few invited best players in the world playing a round robin because they are the only ones that we can seriously see as potential winners. How competitive would people see that kind of tournament and how much prestige would you put on such a tournament? Like it or not having 64 main entries plus qualifying rounds is the most competitive tournament one can find because if one knows the stress of competition in badminton tournaments one would know that playing matches in a tournament setting is more stressful and competitive than a training match. The Olympics is considered a small scale tournament because it doesn't have qualifying rounds and 64 main entries so the competition is less stressful and hence less competitive irrespective of how many potential winners skip the Grand Prix/Super Series events. Plus you are forgetting that often the underdog wins the tournament as I listed in my examples. So you cannot assume some are potential winners and some are hopeless losers (although some obviously are hopeless losers! but not all).
03-21-2007, 03:59 AM #56Originally Posted by phaarix
03-21-2007, 08:10 AM #57Originally Posted by sabathiel
I personally don't believe any opinion should be seen as "lesser" than another.
Getting too technical about the whole thing is often counter productive. You're leaving too much to fact. There is a certain amount that you do have to leave to feeling. It's what makes people human. Using for instance statistics and such as fact ignores the important factor of luck. Judging a player by the tournaments they've won for example does not necessarily show how they have actually performed skill-wise. There have been numerous cases where I've thought the player that lost actually played better than the player that won. Obvious facts can't always be used as the single deciding factor.
I guess getting back to the whole Olympics/WC thing, that's one thing you could use against the Olympics and I'm kind of contradicting myself there. I said that you have to be great to win the Olympics. After thinking about it more, I've decided that in most cases that would be true but like anything else, there can be the odd case that turns out slightly differently.
I guess what I've just said sounds like a load of rubbish. I'm not very good with words sorry.
I don't quite yet see why having 64 people in a tournament makes it more difficult? Sure there are upsets, but overall I would think a tournament including all the very top players would be more difficult than a tournament with only a few? If you're talking stamina, then I think a few very tough 3 set matches would be more physically taxing than 1 or 2 tough matches while breezing through the rest.
Although I would like to ask you sabathiel what to you are the most prestigious tournaments (or rather, as we know that generally the OG/WC are accepted as being so, which do think would be the most deserving tournaments of such prestige in place of them)?
Originally Posted by tjl_vanguard
Last edited by phaarix; 03-21-2007 at 08:14 AM.
03-21-2007, 08:21 AM #58Originally Posted by phaarix
03-21-2007, 09:41 AM #59
Being picky, I noticed a spelling mistake in my post also... I meant "peers" not "pairs". I was rushing too much . Can't edit it now... .
Last edited by phaarix; 03-21-2007 at 09:44 AM.
03-21-2007, 09:02 PM #60
is the stormy weather over yet??
03-22-2007, 12:40 AM #61Originally Posted by tjl_vanguard
The weatherman says thunderstorms will still prevail in my area. Seriously, it's gonna be a case where 'you can argue till the cows come home'. As much as everyone is entitled to their own frivilious & humourous opinion, history has proven that facts, figures, results & the truth prevail.
03-22-2007, 02:58 AM #62Originally Posted by phaarix
I guess I disagree with you on a deep philosophical level. I don't believe anything or anyone is equal and this applies to opinions also. Don't get me wrong I believe in equality before the law and equal opportunity but not equality of results. If we know the facts we can measure the inequalities of anything. To me Nelson Mandela is a better person than Adolf Hitler in terms of morality because the facts speak for themselves. Lin Dan is a better badminton player than John Moody based on the facts and results. Bill Gates is richer than Richard Branson. Einstein is a better scientist than my university lecturer. All these opinions are objective because they have a legitimate basis rooted in facts and a common consensus amongst people. If one has an opinion that Hitler is a better person than Mandela and John Moody is a better badminton player than Lin Dan, what kind of opinion is that? On what basis does one form that opinion? Does the facts and results back that opinion? Are there any compelling arguments to support those opinions? Sure everyone is entitled to express their opinions but it doesn't follow that all opinions have equal value or else the result is anarchy.
So feel free to express your opinion but at least back it up with facts/results, compelling arguments, good analysis and objectivity or else people are not going to take you seriously. Another factor to putting value on opinions is the status of a person and his/her influence. If I think you are the messiah what value can we place on my opinion. However if the Pope thinks you are the messiah that would be a different story. I am not equal to the Pope hence his opinion is better regarded than mine. True, there is a saying that "all men are created equal" but I am not sure if the people who expressed that saying were not simply being nice or being deluded. The truth is that some are more equal than others!
Luck is important but the other factors outweigh luck. How lucky would I be if play Lin Dan? In the end winning the Olympics or WC once doesn't necessarily make you great because as you say luck could be a factor here. Is Alan Budi Kusuma, the winner of the 1992 Olympics, a great player? Is Peter Rasmussen, winner of 1997 WC a great player? What about Ji Xinpeng, winner of 2000 Olympics? To be great one needs to win tournaments consistently and not simply win 1 major tournament no matter how prestigious the tournament. The totality of the player's career must be considered not just one result. This is how greatness is to be judged objectively in my opinion. We must look at all the facts and not one single fact.
Having 64 entries in tournament increase the chances of being more exhausted when one gets to the final. Imagine having all 3 games matches before getting to the finals in a 64 entry tournament. Sure you can have all straight games but I am arguing the possibility of having 3 games matches. You are assuming some top players would be absent in this 64 entry tournament. What if they are all present? At least in the Olympic setting we can be sure that some top players will definetely be absent due to the quota system. In an Open (64 entry) tournament it is possible (and it often happens) that all the top players will be present.
To answer your question which tournament do I consider to be the most prestigious, my answer is without a doubt the All England. The reasons are the players regard this tournament as highly prestigious and would not be satisfied unless they win at least once at All England even though the tournament held once a year unlike the Olympics. This tournament has a rich history being the oldest badminton tournament ever starting in 1899 which has a long list of badminton greats. Before there was the WC the All England is regarded as the unofficial World Championship. The tournament is held on a neutral ground due to the fact that England is not a badminton powerhouse unlike the World Championship whcih could be held in Malaysia, China or Indonesia which favours the local players from these badminton powerhouses. This is an Open tournament which allows for all the top players to compete and has a qualifying round which allows reasonably good players, who do not have sufficient world rankings due to injuries like Sony Dwi Kuncoro or even relatively new players like KKK/TBH, to participate. As a matter of fact if I am not mistaken KKK/TBH won the All England after going through the qualifying rounds. If this was the Olympics KKK/TBH would not be able to play and they were the best MD pair as proven by their victory in this year's All England. So the Olympics quota system based on each country allocated 2/3 entries in one event judged by their world rankings is flawed in thinking all the best players would be able to participate in this tournament. KKK/TBH the recently formed new pair has proven this to be the case.
03-22-2007, 06:25 AM #63Originally Posted by Joyous
There is so much we don't know, and so much we cannot predict. I think that alone is proof enough that you cannot always rely on your "facts and figures".
I don't think there's any point continuing though. Why waste our time debating over our beliefs? We all obviously see the world very differently and I'd like to leave it at that. Though I would like to point out that when I mentioned luck, I was using that as one example. I did not mean to compare players with a very obvious difference in skill. Luck indeed plays very little part in such a situation. I completely agree with you that the All England is one of the, if not the most prestigious tournaments. Due mainly to it's history. An Olympic Gold though certainly has a history of it's own. For many athletes an Olympic Gold is the highest honor.
03-22-2007, 02:41 PM #64
on the subject of great players in my personal opinion taufik hidayat is one of the great players as the seems to the player with by far the most talent out of all men singles.
03-22-2007, 04:48 PM #65
sabathiel@ .....u won this debate...i gave u 9/10 points...Roger federrer was the greatest tennis player ever....I never yet c some1 can played like him...
03-22-2007, 07:41 PM #66Originally Posted by virtualkidneys!
03-22-2007, 09:37 PM #67
TBH/KKK Swiss Open
I enjoy opinions which are humourous & frivilous at times because they take the stress out of daily routine - like the one "why so & so lost .. & the crazy excuses some of the fans posted. In fact there were a couple of times where I can laugh till I fall off my chair. IMO in instances like these, I will not take up a debate because obviously it's meant for fun.
However, if you seriously want to enter into a debate, you have to do your homework esp. when you are up against someone like Sabathiel who I believe does research & thorough work before he post his views. I can't be wishy-washy about it because there is only one end result.
Last edited by Joyous; 03-22-2007 at 09:39 PM. Reason: Spelling error
03-22-2007, 11:31 PM #68Originally Posted by Joyous
I'm going to have to agree that some comments are quite funny (and perhaps some of mine are to some people as well >_>), sorry I wasn't in a great mood earlier. I think a lot of the crazy excuses are just people who refuse to admit that their hero can lose from time to time. I'm sure they know deep down that they were wrong .
By jbchiong in forum German Open / All England / Swiss Open 2007Replies: 0: 03-12-2007, 10:54 PM
By yannie in forum Malaysia Open / Korea Open 2007Replies: 0: 01-25-2007, 02:48 PM
By Shabok in forum German Open / All England / Swiss Open 2005Replies: 38: 01-10-2006, 06:07 AM
By kwun in forum Swiss Open 2006 / German Open 2006Replies: 4: 01-04-2006, 06:24 PM
By kwun in forum Swiss Open 2004Replies: 0: 02-25-2004, 03:11 PM