How does one discover their 'level' of play? Please havea look at this video, what standard of play are these people? I'm thinking I better then the first video, noway near as good as those in the second Is there a set hierarchy people use e.g. amatuer, novice, average club level, intermediate, advanced, professional? http://youtube.com/watch?v=zusn-XqRSWw http://youtube.com/watch?v=tqLzEgmw04Q
Okay I posted the wrong video, but the second video in my first post can be replaced by http://youtube.com/watch?v=DbliRD-BSA8
i believe this topic has been discussed in quite a number of times...maybe u can check this out? http://www.badminton-network.com/ba...hp?PHPSESSID=c0f74821a78800f80d157981f587c09a i believe it's made by one of the regular groups here in BC anyway to answer your question...using my own terms... 1st vid----recreational, amateur 2nd vid---competitive, beginner/recreational, intermediate
Assessing your standard is essentially comparative in nature. There can be no meaningful comparison without objective measures. If you compete at international level, then your current standard can be definitively assessed by your world ranking. This is a global assessment: your are comparing yourself against every player in the world. All other assessments are local by nature. If you compete in national, regional, or local tournaments, then your results form an objective basis for assessing your standard relative to the others who compete in that arena. In the absence of objective comparisons, you can only make qualitative assessments. There is no "set hierarchy". No assessment will allow you to say, "I'm 23% professional, whereas my opponent is only 16% professional". There is no clear borderline for qualitative terms such as "beginner", "intermediate", and "advanced". These terms are useless for making player assessments. ** EDIT ** my comments pertain to the first video, with the much weaker players In terms of a coaching appraisal of that group of players, I would characterise their badminton thus: They are competent, having developed a range of skills for hitting the shuttle. They show a rudimentary tactical awareness. By far their biggest weakness is that they are lazy. Their style of play indicates no urgency or hunger to win the rally; it's too casual. They don't seem to be competing so much as socialising on court. Their posture is more "disco wallflower" than "badminton athlete". This might seem harsh, but I have many young juniors who are more motivated than these players. My younger juniors would not yet beat those players, but my juniors have far better potential because of their aggression and hunger to win. Unless those players change their attitude, they will never improve much. My juniors, on the other hand, improve rapidly because of their strong motivation. My most important task as their coach is not teaching them badminton skills, but helping them to create and sustain a winning attitude. If you are concerned with your status -- with the question, "how good am I?", then you may be missing the more relevant question: "how can I improve?"
divingbirdie, but they don't actually tell you how good you are. they give you a number (eg 6.9 or 7.2 or 5.0 etc) all right but they dont tell you how good that is. so what would a 4.5 be? a new beginner? and what would a 7.0 be? an intermediate?
yea it's just a numerical index i guess...and of course we can argue how we'd gauge terms like 'good', 'consistent', 'powerful', The system is also not specific enough to paint a clear picture of one's skill level. A video would do such a job bestbut well......at least it's a set of good guidelines check these 2 threads out http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43845 http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32006
Guilty as charged. For all that English is not his first language, Lee has an apt turn of phrase; I'm happy to borrow some of his mannerisms.
Maybe it seems that the level of play on the forums is extremely high, it appears that my standard is far below what I was expecting. I am not as good as those in the second vid, but I have been playing only a year, but I am improving very quickly, I can beat some people who have been playing a lot longer then me, but I suppose the length of time you have been playing isn't a good indicator of skill of a player because some players don't try to maximise their improvement like I do. I guess because I am still new i have this unquenchable hunger to improvement as fast as I can, this goes for any other sport!
people tend to improve as the years go by. so a 40 year old might not necessarily lose to a 20 year old
On the internet, everybody is a pro As for me, I just can't get around the fact they played 5 clears in just 2 minutes...(both video's) the exhibition-match is quality material though, I wouldn't dare put myself above them
I guess that here at BC we have some very good players, as well as a lot of 'intermediates' covering a huge range of standards. I must admit that I find it amusing that some people who post here call themselves intermediate having only played for a few months - some talented ones will be intermediate but the vast majority will still be beginners . But its all relative, compared to a pro I'm a recreational player, but compared to the person who has only played for a few months then I'd be advanced! In Belgium its easy, we have a ranking system from D to A with subdivisions so you know where you are. No system like that when I played in the UK, all you could use was your team's place in the league and fellow club members (but it may have changed by now). For me, my standard doesn't really matter - I play in a club in a local league, so I always want to make the first team and win the division! I don't compare myself with the national players - its pointless - I just admire them for their skill. IMO (for what its worth, from a competitive player) : 1st clip recreational but not a beginner 2nd clip decent competitive/club player, definitely not beginner
If you are just able to hit the bird over and do a clear, but not all basic strokes, you're a beginner. If you have all the basic strokes and are able to use them all efficiently, to attack your opponent's weaknesses, then you are probably an intermediate. If you have all basic strokes down, all advance strokes down, fast footwork, and constantly attack your opponent's weaknesses, and your strokes all seem effortless, then you're probably advanced. If you are world ranked, then you're professional. If you are extremely famous among the world rankings, constantly win, and hold a high ranking, you are a legend.
If you're interested in knowing your level of play compared to others, you need to play competitively, whether it be tournaments or local leagues or whatever. You can take it from there. I must say, it was quite a kick to see the first video. Not because of the play, but because of the venue. I was watching it and thinking "there's something very familiar about this". In fact, that was Wellington's Badminton Hall, my original badminton home. I spent many years playing there when I used to live in Wellington. Wayne Young
that's great spirit anyway wow at the GGBC exhibition! if only singapore has such exhibition matches for us to watch
wow, divingbirdie must be damn pro. For me, i think: Video1: Skill - intermediate (able to execute basic strokes) Gameplay - leisure (not very serious in the game) Video2: Skill - high intermediate (stroke wise is good but too many unforced errors) Gameplay - competitive (but strategy wise still not very good) I think rating should include skill level and gameplay level. You may have high skill level but may just be playing for leisure. what do you guys think?
