Let's conclude it, Lin Dan is the best MS baddy player in human history.

**Amin Khalili** · 03-15-2009, 11:37 AM

Yeah but it still mystery to me .. are lin dan play seriously on super series?

**Wong8Egg** · 03-15-2009, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by mettayogi

LD just lost to LCW 21-16 21-16 in Swiss Open. As I said before, 'best' in sports is temporary.

Someone can insist the best still loses sometimes. Then what's the difference between 'best' and 'not best', if they lose? The so-called 'best' is time average, or sample a particular time scale. On a match by match basis, the 'best' can still lose on any particular day, and is not the best on that day.

Arguing a particular sampling period (e.g. 1 year) is superior to another (1 day) would be purely empirical.
Saying LCW is the best MS baddy player today would be less controversial, isn't it?

I am absolutely clueless of what you're trying to proof here. No one is claiming that LD is unbeatable and for the rest of his life, and not one is compare today's LD vs Today's ZJH.
LD has been sitting on the #1 spot for 5 years, not 1 day. So if that's the time scale you are referring, that's that mean he is simply the best???

**Wong8Egg** · 03-15-2009, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by ye333

Did you read my post? I have said many times that I have no objection to the claim that LD/LCW can beat ZJH, what I cannot agree with is your claim that players like today's PG, TH or even Joachim Persson can beat ZJH in his prime.

BTW, how do you deal with my ZJH vs SJ example?

Did you watch the video I posted? I have no problem with ZJH personally and I have full respect to him. What I am saying is many top players today like PG and TH (probably not Joachim

) + few others, like LHI, CH, would beat ZJH, prime vs prime.

**cooler** · 03-15-2009, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Amin Khalili

Yeah but it still mystery to me .. are lin dan play seriously on super series?

IMO, No. Ranking and money are not priortiy for LD now. SS's are just that.

**cooler** · 03-15-2009, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Wong8Egg

I am absolutely clueless of what you're trying to proof here. No one is claiming that LD is unbeatable and for the rest of his life, and not one is compare today's LD vs Today's ZJH.
LD has been sitting on the #1 spot for 5 years, not 1 day. So if that's the time scale you are referring, that's that mean he is simply the best???

yeah, i stop replying to his/her posts. It would only carry me into never neverland

**mettayogi** · 03-15-2009, 02:23 PM

http://www.internationalbadminton.org/ranking.asp
LCW is ranked #1 by BWF today. He was ranked #1 for the past 6 months IIRC, partly because LD missed many tournaments after OG.

LD is ranked #1 by BWF longer than anyone else in the last 5 years. He was not always ranked #1, just longer than others.

And why do you insist 5 years is the only valid duration to judge someone is best? Judging from 6 months BWF ranking, LCW is the best baddy player. If the thread title is 'LD has the best winning record in the past 2 years.' I think there is not much debate. But what does that statement mean, really, beyond what it says?

It's debatable whether LD was better than everyone else in 2005, despite more medals. Remember not every player wants to win every SS. e.g. TH played seriously only he cared. If you watched how LD lost to TH in 2007 JO, you will probably agree TH was better than LD at that time.

I don't have a crystal ball to know whether someone will be better than LD 20 years from now, or even 2 years from now.

'Better' or 'best' is relative, and temporary.
When you play a game, the outcome doesn't depend on what's your winning record against him. Case in point: LD can't count on his winning record against LCW when he plays LCW. He can't think 'LCW had lost to me so many times, I am the best and will win easily.' He has to go all out, mentally and physically, and show he is better today, now. Past winning against LCW doesn't count for this match. LD was not better than LCW in Swiss Open, as it turned out.

Don't let history get into your head when you play someone. Live in the present moment, not the past, nor the future. Whoever is better on that day will win, as simple as that.

Originally Posted by Wong8Egg

I am absolutely clueless of what you're trying to proof here. No one is claiming that LD is unbeatable and for the rest of his life, and not one is compare today's LD vs Today's ZJH.
LD has been sitting on the #1 spot for 5 years, not 1 day. So if that's the time scale you are referring, that's that mean he is simply the best???

**flymordecai** · 03-15-2009, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by mettayogi

Arguing a particular sampling period (e.g. 1 year) is superior to another (1 day) would be purely empirical.
Saying LCW is the best MS baddy player today would be less controversial, isn't it?

Why? Because he finally beat Lin Dan after four consecutive loses(or was it five)? It would be more controversial to call a player who hasn't won the World Championships, the Olympics, and the All England the best player today just because he won the Swiss Open, over the reigning Olympic, World Championships, and All England champion: Lin Dan.

**flymordecai** · 03-15-2009, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Wong8Egg

I am absolutely clueless of what you're trying to proof here. No one is claiming that LD is unbeatable and for the rest of his life, and not one is compare today's LD vs Today's ZJH.
LD has been sitting on the #1 spot for 5 years, not 1 day. So if that's the time scale you are referring, that's that mean he is simply the best???

Actually to take it to another extreme, the best player in the world of the moment is whoever won the last point. So if it's 10-10 all in the first game and then LCW wins the next point to make it 11-10, then at that exact moment in time, he is the best player in the world. If he wins the next point, he retains the title of best player in the world. If Lin Dan wins the point after, then he takes over the title of best player in the world. See, it's constantly changing.

**mettayogi** · 03-15-2009, 04:01 PM

The rules of badminton still apply. A match is won by 2 out of 3 games, not by a one point lead.

It is a contradiction to say LD is best on 3-15-2009 and loses to LCW. Isn't that obvious? If the best doesn't win, then what does it take to win?

Originally Posted by flymordecai

Actually to take it to another extreme, the best player in the world of the moment is whoever won the last point. So if it's 10-10 all in the first game and then LCW wins the next point to make it 11-10, then at that exact moment in time, he is the best player in the world. If he wins the next point, he retains the title of best player in the world. If Lin Dan wins the point after, then he takes over the title of best player in the world. See, it's constantly changing.

**thejym** · 03-15-2009, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by mettayogi

Don't let history get into your head when you play someone. Live in the present moment, not the past, nor the future. Whoever is better on that day will win, as simple as that.

This is true, although I believe that as a player, it's sometimes hard to ignore history. For example, LD has won the majority of his matches against LCW, so I bet that deep inside LCW is a little uncertain if he can win or not, whereas LD exudes confidence. And it would seem that that psychological factor would affect the outcome of the game to some extent.

**mettayogi** · 03-15-2009, 04:16 PM

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Repeat after me: LCW is better than LD on 2009-3-15.

LD can't relax after he had won OG, WC, AE and rely on past records to claim #1. Right? If Swiss Open is the beginning of losing streak for LD vs. LCW in the next 12 months, can you still claim LD is the best because he had won OG, WC, AE and LCW hasn't? So why can you now?

That is why I say: the best keeps changing day by day. World ranking, flawed as it is, is an attempt to reflect that. Only winning records in the past 12 months count in BWF ranking.

Originally Posted by flymordecai

Why? Because he finally beat Lin Dan after four consecutive loses(or was it five)? It would be more controversial to call a player who hasn't won the World Championships, the Olympics, and the All England the best player today just because he won the Swiss Open, over the reigning Olympic, World Championships, and All England champion: Lin Dan.

***jamesd20*** · 03-15-2009, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by mettayogi

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Neither are current results!

**mettayogi** · 03-15-2009, 04:57 PM

Yes!
Badminton victory is match by match. Forget your past loss or victory when you play.

Originally Posted by jamesd20

Neither are current results!

**dassad** · 03-15-2009, 04:59 PM

Comparisons like LD-TH by the score of their private meetings seem to me as stupid as many tennis fans compare Federer to Agassi, Sampras and so on. They played their best games in different eras, and the fact they played together is not saying a lot at all.
Comparison must come from another sources, in these cases

**dassad** · 03-15-2009, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by mettayogi

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Repeat after me: LCW is better than LD on 2009-3-15.

LD can't relax after he had won OG, WC, AE and rely on past records to claim #1. Right? If Swiss Open is the beginning of losing streak for LD vs. LCW in the next 12 months, can you still claim LD is the best because he had won OG, WC, AE and LCW hasn't? So why can you now?

That is why I say: the best keeps changing day by day. World ranking, flawed as it is, is an attempt to reflect that. Only winning records in the past 12 months count in BWF ranking.

you are still at some areas pretty far from the theme. Even if LCW will have the even score with LD, he still has no OG, WCH and so on titles.
And 12 months are really not important here, in a case we are talking about how much a player made in the history.
Separate between historic importance and current rankings