User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 17 of 48
  1. #1
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    12,052
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Should BWF change its present world ranking system?

    I agree no system is perfect.

    LCW is WR1 because he participates in more tournaments than many of the other top players, particularly LD, within the time period specified by BWF. And he did well in most of these, I'm sure.

    Most will agree that LD is the best player right now although he is ranked not WR1 but a few rungs below at WR4 or WR5 perhaps. It seems more appropriate that he should be WR1 to reflect his true standing so that he will be the top seed in the tournaments he participates and not now when he normally gets a lower seeding and has to face off LCW even before the semis. If these two are the top two best players in the world, they should be seeded 1 and 2 and placed in different halves in the draw. Then we can look forward to a more exciting finish.

    But how to devise a ranking system that both reflects the true ability of the player and be fair to all professionals? What is wrong with the present BWF system? What is the present system in the first place?

    LD does not play in all the SS tournaments and LCW is going to follow suit soon. In a relatively short time there may emerge a new World No.1 in the absence of these two top players if one or more of the other current top 10 players participate in many more tournaments than either LD or LCW. These will then distort the seedings again and the better players may be knocked out sooner than expected as LD and LCW may have to meet again in R2 or QF.

    Therefore what do you think the BWF should consider if they need to devise a better system for world ranking purposes?

    Should they:

    1. Disregard the time period, or cut-off time like a player's performance only during the past 12 months or more?

    2. Extend the time period to cover 2 years or longer, for example? This may neglect the player's current form!

    3. Consider only the player's result in the last 5 or 10 tournamanents he participated, so that a player like LD who may not have taken part in many SS tournaments or those that carry ranking points, but did well in many of them, will still retain their accumulated high points.

    4. Limit the time frame so that a player who has scored very high ranking points but who did not play in tournaments during the year for various reasons like injury, marriage, pregnancy, etc, will not continue to enjoy a high seeding? Neither do we want to see a previous champion like PG or WCH having to play in qualification matches once they have recovered from injury and are ready to compete.

    What other considerations do you think should be added or deleted?

  2. #2
    Regular Member ctjcad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    u.s.a.
    Posts
    19,157
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Just my 2.25 cents..

    ..ah what da heck...

    Here are my inputs on these questions:

    1. But how to devise a ranking system that both reflects the true ability of the player and be fair to all professionals?

    Answer: We can not because as we can see, a player like LD's calibre can easily be a WR#1 if he participates in more tourneys. However, there's no mechanism which will enforce or penalize him if he doesn't join tourneys.
    If we want to see a ranking which reflects a true ability of a player and be fair to all pro, then, IMO, choice no.3 is the closest.
    Also, what do you mean by "be fair to all professionals"??..

    2. What is wrong with the present BWF system?

    Answer: it's not wrong if its purpose is to provide a ranking system used for tournaments. Flawed, yes, but it depends what the person is looking for.

    3. What is the present system in the first place?

    Answer: not too sure what you're asking?!?!. The current system, i believe, is based on pts accumulated by how far a player finishes in tourneys. More like a reward system, the more tourneys a players participates in, the more pts s/he gets.

    4. Therefore what do you think the BWF should consider if they need to devise a better system for world ranking purposes?

    Answer: IMO, choice no.3 is the closest. We'd only take the total no. of points a player participates in and divvy it up by the number of tourneys s/he took. More like we use the "avg-pts-per-tourney" type format. The highest avg pts/tourney will be ranked no.1 and so forth.
    I think it'll come the closest in providing both the true ability of the player as well as it would be fair to all professionals.

    Will this be the cure to all?...i wish..
    Last edited by ctjcad; 09-27-2009 at 04:47 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member ctjcad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    u.s.a.
    Posts
    19,157
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Another idea..

    We can also use a system of diminishing effect. The idea is by giving each player 1000 pts @ the beginning of each yr and every subsequent tourney a player participates in, the pts would be reduced based on some assigned numbers, then maybe that would work.

    For example:
    1st week of 2010. Every player is given the same amt of pts.

    LD - 1000 pts
    LCW - 1000 pts. Participates in Korea Open but loses in R16. Then his total pts will be reduced by 100 pts. He would end up with 900 pts.
    CJ - 1000 pts. Participates in Korea Open but loses in QF. Then his total pts will be reduced by 75 pts. He would then end up with 925 pts.

    By the 2nd week of 2010, LD would still remain no.1, but CJ has moved ahead of LCW with 925 pts. LCW would drop to no.3 with 900 pts.
    Something like that.

    But then, here's the catch. What if 30 other players decide not to participate in any tourneys. Then their pts will remain @ 1000.
    Or should we assign some rule which will require players to participate in a minimum no. of tourneys.

    ..aahh, it gets more complicated...

    ..is there really a system that's perfect??..

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    malaysia
    Posts
    193
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    there is no perfect system in the world but the tennis rankings system seems fairly good.
    why not follow it?

  5. #5
    Moderator drifit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Selangor, Malaysia
    Posts
    6,428
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pralinescream View Post
    there is no perfect system in the world but the tennis rankings system seems fairly good.
    why not follow it?

    are sure tennis ranking is good?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    12,052
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pralinescream View Post
    there is no perfect system in the world but the tennis rankings system seems fairly good.
    why not follow it?
    Can you summarise their main points?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Jakarta
    Posts
    12,100
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry to say, BWF Ranking admin is very bad.
    A lot of ranking points of new players and pairs are wrong, they said because of player id problem.

  8. #8
    Regular Member ctjcad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    u.s.a.
    Posts
    19,157
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Here they are..

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post
    Can you summarise their main points?
    ..i think tennis' own ranking systems are as complicated and imperfect as well..Btw, yes, tennis has 2 ranking systems: WTA ranking and ATP ranking.

    Here, i'll just share these 2 links and let you guys read them to get a better understanding:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTA_rankings

    http://www.onthebaseline.com/2009/08...tem-explained/

    And this one is an article mentioning a few complaints on the WTA ranking system (this one touches the current thread topic as well) :
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92542&page=1
    Last edited by ctjcad; 09-28-2009 at 02:47 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    malaysia
    Posts
    22,181
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    does world ranking is so important to everyone?

  10. #10
    Regular Member chris-ccc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    26,771
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Arrow What is the present BWF World Ranking Points System?

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post

    But how to devise a ranking system that both reflects the true ability of the player and be fair to all professionals? What is wrong with the present BWF system? What is the present system in the first place?

    .
    Question: What is the present BWF World Ranking Points System?
    Answer: click here
    .

  11. #11
    Regular Member Loh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Singapore Also Can
    Posts
    12,052
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by limsy View Post
    does world ranking is so important to everyone?
    What do you think?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Shah Alam
    Posts
    2,851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loh View Post
    3. Consider only the player's result in the last 5 or 10 tournamanents he participated, so that a player like LD who may not have taken part in many SS tournaments or those that carry ranking points, but did well in many of them, will still retain their accumulated high points.
    Quote Originally Posted by ctjcad View Post
    Answer: IMO, choice no.3 is the closest. We'd only take the total no. of points a player participates in and divvy it up by the number of tourneys s/he took. More like we use the "avg-pts-per-tourney" type format. The highest avg pts/tourney will be ranked no.1 and so forth.
    I think it'll come the closest in providing both the true ability of the player as well as it would be fair to all professionals.

    Will this be the cure to all?...i wish..
    "avg-pts-per-tourney" type format - That was fair. . It is, for me.
    Zooming in the shortcomings in BWF system ranking is needed, as the ranking poll is not being well-accepted. It would be fair to all professionals, when public are not questioning their position in world ranking. (impossible, huh? it will never be perfect ).

    I second this suggestion. Hope it'll work better than before.

  13. #13
    Regular Member ctjcad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    u.s.a.
    Posts
    19,157
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default I think..

    Quote Originally Posted by chris@ccc View Post
    .
    Question: What is the present BWF World Ranking Points System?
    Answer: click here
    .
    ..this link is more relevant to the current BWF World Ranking system:
    http://internationalbadminton.org/fi....aspx?id=11639

    ..maybe Loh might take some time to read & compare both BWF and ATP world ranking systems..and could give us some kind of feedback or overview of both of them..

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Badmintonshire
    Posts
    1,613
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default elements of a good system...

    there are the following questions to be asked regarding a ranking system:

    1. the points allocate to level of achievements in each competition shall be the basics of ranking points. what would be the fairest way to allocate the points? is the current 9200, 7800 and 6840 to winner, runner-up and semi-finalist in super-series a fair reflection of the achievement?

    2. should there be extra bonus points if a lower ranking player defeat a higher ranking player?

    3. which points should better be used for the ranking? the average points achieved per competition or accumulated over many competitions?

    4. what should the ranking period? 2 years (like golf)? 1 year (like current system and tennis)? or a customised system (like snooker, have world ranking for 2 years achievement, and a provisional ranking for the current season)? [my own preference is the 2-year system golf and snooker system which more accurate in reflecting the achievement and minimize the short term impact due to minor injury, marriage, etc, that may take a player out of competitions for 1-2 or 3 months, so people is still convinced that Woods is No.1 even he rested for a few months due to injury recent years).

    in my own opion, the current system lacks consideration on the above, and therefore resulted in people's impression that it does not reflect the true ability of a player that the general public perceives...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Badmintonshire
    Posts
    1,613
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    interesting, there was a similar discussion at wikipedia website for golf ranking...

    "Discussion caused by the "number one" ranking" at

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officia..._Golf_Rankings

  16. #16
    Moderator drifit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Selangor, Malaysia
    Posts
    6,428
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by limsy View Post
    does world ranking is so important to everyone?
    of course important!
    if not, there will be no debate/discussion regarding Lee Chong Wei.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    TW, SG, HK
    Posts
    7,314
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    no.3 is the best as it takes into account the players current form and thier recent results and also would allow players who had to miss tournaments through injury marrige etc. And would show the true WR1 not the one who is playin the most tournaments

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. BWF ranking system
    By Foreverlove in forum Professional Players
    Replies: 1
    : 05-20-2009, 10:25 AM
  2. New World Ranking System!
    By hcpoirot in forum Professional Players
    Replies: 45
    : 06-25-2006, 10:14 PM
  3. Change to the system
    By Dill in forum Jonas Rasmussen Forum
    Replies: 0
    : 10-21-2004, 04:47 PM
  4. New Ranking System
    By Mag in forum General Forum
    Replies: 1
    : 09-07-2002, 08:30 AM
  5. ranking system
    By psichoduck in forum General Forum
    Replies: 2
    : 05-02-2002, 10:57 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •