Badminton: KKK-TBH Swiss Open’s champion!

[phaarix]

In response to Phaarix last post:

There is only so much a great and fit player can bear in terms of fitnes. Nobody is a Superman! There are numerous cases where a better player has lost in the finals to an inferior player because the better player has to endure gruelling and longer matches in the previous rounds. An example is Pulella Gopichand won AE 2001 beating Chen Hong in the finals. Chen Hong was physically drained after winning his semifinals in a long 3 set match while Gopichand had a relatively comofortable 2 sets win in the semifinals. We all know Chen Hong is a better player than Gopichand because Gopichand was a one tournament winner wonder. Imagine if a player had to go through numerous long 3 set matches before the finals and play against a player who had easy wins on the way to the final. There are limits to greatness because the body can only endure so much. And yes one of the criteria of being a great player is being physically fit. Stamina does define a great player just as much as skills and playing ability. What is the point of being skillful but you run out of steam to exercise those skills on court. One of the groundbreaking achievements of Rudy Hartono was that he lift the level of fitness of a badminton player to an unprecedented level with his training. Fitness is very important in badminton because it is a very fast game that may last up to 2 hours (old scoring system) or 1.5 hours (new scoring system).

Yes fitness is very important to badminton of course, I didn't mean to say it wasn't . I think I said somewhere else though I believe it's up to the individual as to what makes a great player. We've all got different ideas. I personally don't see stamina as an important factor. Of course in the game itself you need to be fit, but I don't see it as a huge factor in greatness. I don't see myself remembering a player for their stamina. That's just me .

I think this is going way off the road....

It's obviously what people seem to be most interested in discussing though isn't it ?

[sabathiel]

great players are not great because of the tournaments that they won. i believe great players are determined by their tenacity, consistency, personality, spirit and being humbled by all the above. domination is the one being determined by how many tournaments have been won by a player. but really great players are above that. i have always respected humble champions. for they know they are probably not the best and probably will not dominate for too long but while they are up there, they will enjoy it and enjoy their fans. so really, what are you guys looking for, great players or players who dominate. because you see, agassi have always been a great player to me even when he was supposedly below pete sampras and roger federer. go figure. he he he.

Different people will have different criterias in judging who is a great player but the one that matters is the history books judgement. At the end of the day history will judge greatness by a player's resume, his achievements and how dominant that player was during his/her era. Records speak for themselves in the player's resume. It is a bonus if the player's record also has great technique, sportmanship, mental toughness, humility, friendly personality etc. John McEnroe was not a great sportsman and was a super brat but many if not most judge him to be a great player because of the other factors.

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.

[sabathiel]

Yes fitness is very important to badminton of course, I didn't mean to say it wasn't . I think I said somewhere else though I believe it's up to the individual as to what makes a great player. We've all got different ideas. I personally don't see stamina as an important factor. Of course in the game itself you need to be fit, but I don't see it as a huge factor in greatness. I don't see myself remembering a player for their stamina. That's just me .

True we are all individuals and we have different opinions as to who are great players but we must remember the majority rules and the historians or experts' opinions have more weight than the average individual opinion. The great players will no doubt be inducted into the badminton hall of fame so the ones who are not in the hall of fame are less regarded. Off course there is noone stopping you from having an opinion that Joe Bloggs is a great player even if the majority or the experts disagrees with you but where is the objectivity in that. So express your own opinion if you want but does your opinion hold any weight or is highly regarded by your peers?

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.

[sabathiel]

Being the most prestiguous GP event, AE'06 happened to attract more top MD pairs than WC'06 (but I didn't list down another "absent" pair of AE'06 - TG/CW, who hadn't paired up again till the middle of the year!). For other events, however, there were at least 3 top pairs who skipped each of them.
If we combine both the MS and the MD listings, the statistics prove that WC'06 still managed to attract more top players than any GP event despite of its country quotas.

I think the only scenario that could make 2cents and sabathiel's arguments valid is that a country dominates a particular category by having more than 4 players/pairs who ALL are potential world champions and at least one of them will not be qualified for WC due to country quotas. Consider China, I think only 3 of their MS players have realistic chances to become the next world champion in coming September (LD, BCL and CJ; while CY and CH could at most be spoilers rather than winners if they are qualified anyway, judging from their present form); same for WS and WD. No country is dominating MD and XD, so the country quota rule is not an issue in these two categories at all.

From we the fans' point of view, more countries' participations may increase the level of the competitiveness as well. When a player faces an opponent from another country, he is fighting for his country's honors + his own reputation. On the other hand, when a player faces his own compatriot, he's only fighting for himself (and the two players might know each other's game paly too well because they train together; all these factors make their match less interesting). Frankly speaking, I might skip the TV telecast of all-China finals (most likely the WD finals) even if I'm a fan of Chinese players.

If we are judging the overall prestige of one tournament over another than we must not judge the tournament in question during a particular year but judge the tournament's prestige at every occasion.

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).

[tjl_vanguard]

It's obviously what people seem to be most interested in discussing though isn't it ?

Yea... Then, i think we should create a new thread for this one... and wads the title gonna be???

[phaarix]

True we are all individuals and we have different opinions as to who are great players but we must remember the majority rules and the historians or experts' opinions have more weight than the average individual opinion. The great players will no doubt be inducted into the badminton hall of fame so the ones who are not in the hall of fame are less regarded. Off course there is noone stopping you from having an opinion that Joe Bloggs is a great player even if the majority or the experts disagrees with you but where is the objectivity in that. So express your own opinion if you want but does your opinion hold any weight or is highly regarded by your peers?

Who are the "experts" then? To some people it does not matter so much if their opinion is not "highly regarded" by their pairs. An opinion is unique to the person. Whether anyone agrees with it or not is beside the point. As far as I'm concerned my opinions are my opinions, they're part of what make me, well... me. I don't aim to persuade everyone to agree with them. Not everything is facts and figures . I don't go and mathematically calulate why so and so player is great. All I know is that after seeing them play, following their achievements, etc. I've formed an opinion on them.

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)?

Yea... Then, i think we should create a new thread for this one... and wads the title gonna be???

There are already lots of KKK/TBH threads . Perhaps this one should be renamed, as most of the thread has already been taken up with this debate ?

[X Ball]

Who are the "experts" then? To some people it does not matter so much if their opinion is not "highly regarded" by their pairs. An opinion is unique to the person. Whether anyone agrees with it or not is beside the point. As far as I'm concerned my opinions are my opinions, they're part of what make me, well... me. I don't aim to persuade everyone to agree with them. Not everything is facts and figures . I don't go and mathematically calulate why so and so player is great. All I know is that after seeing them play, following their achievements, etc. I've formed an opinion on them.

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)?



There are already lots of KKK/TBH threads . Perhaps this one should be renamed, as most of the thread has already been taken up with this debate ?

Don't apologise with your ".....not very good with words sorry." It is a mouthful you have said here.

[phaarix]

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... .

[tjl_vanguard]

is the stormy weather over yet??

[Joyous]

is the stormy weather over yet??

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.

[sabathiel]

Who are the "experts" then? To some people it does not matter so much if their opinion is not "highly regarded" by their pairs. An opinion is unique to the person. Whether anyone agrees with it or not is beside the point. As far as I'm concerned my opinions are my opinions, they're part of what make me, well... me. I don't aim to persuade everyone to agree with them. Not everything is facts and figures . I don't go and mathematically calulate why so and so player is great. All I know is that after seeing them play, following their achievements, etc. I've formed an opinion on them.

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)?

You don't know who the experts are? Professional badminton players, ex-pro badminton players, badminton journalists or commentators, BWF administrators, badminton historians etc. How do you think some players are inducted to the badminton hall of fame? The experts!

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.

[phaarix]

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.

If you're going to actually contribute to this thread then please do, but what purpose does insulting others opinions serve?

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.

[virtualkidneys!]

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.

[jkDavid]

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...

[sabathiel]

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.

Taufik is BY FAR the most talented player out of all the men's singles? Can you back up your opinion with some reasons as to why you think this is the case? Let's hear the arguments.

[Joyous]

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.

[phaarix]

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.

Ok ok then, I tried not to get into the debate, as my first post in this thread says . But I'm going to stick by what I said in this thread whether I thoroughly researched it or not as I strongly believe a lot of what I said is correct.

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 .