Should BWF change its present world ranking system?

**limsy** · 10-01-2009, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by ctjcad

- Those 28 players in the main draw are not necessarily ranked WR1 to WR28 in the world. The 28th player in the main draw could be ranked 30 or 40 or even 60 in the world.
- Same thing with the top 44 players in the main draw. Not all of them are ranked WR1 to WR44 in the world.
- Are you expecting all players to attend every single tourney & go injury free for the whole yr? Take for example Julia Wong. She's injured and can't compete in half of this yr's tourneys.

i mean the 29th wr player can play in gp gold,as easy as that.
anyone can participate in higher level competition but cannot oppositely.
so if julia injured,then the 29th player replace lar,what so dificult?

i mean,in the main draw of gp gold is 29th player,or 30th even 100th but not 1-28th,is that my post is hard to understand?

- Team events do not provide prize-money; only can get through national body/people's tax money mah, if the team wins...

- IMO, it's both not enough tourneys and prize money being offered.

the prize money can be increase one lar

13 tournament a year not enough for top 28 player?
and the 29-infinity can attend 20 a year to infinity

Even if it's enough, how many players can attend all of them and be happy with the prize money being offered? Would you, limsy, go and participate in a $50,000 tourney knowing well if you get eliminated in R32 or R16, you have a small chance to earn $200?

why not?i attend to play,not to earn money
lol

do my post hard to understand?

**ctjcad** · 10-01-2009, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by limsy

i mean the 29th wr player can play in gp gold,as easy as that.
anyone can participate in higher level competition but cannot oppositely.
so if julia injured,then the 29th player replace lar,what so dificult?
i mean,in the main draw of gp gold is 29th player,or 30th even 100th but not 1-28th,is that my post is hard to understand?

the prize money can be increase one lar
13 tournament a year not enough for top 28 player?
and the 29-infinity can attend 20 a year to infinity

why not?i attend to play,not to earn money
lol

do my post hard to understand?

- So, why can't a GP Gold tourney allow player w/a WR higher than 28 to compete? Why set it to only the top 28 players? Why can't it be set to top 20 or 25 or 30 or 35?
My point was, why limit the number of tourneys a player wants to participate in. If, for example, Julia Wong is ranked 26th in the world, has been out for 1/2 yr and just recovered from injury, but she has 6 months left to play in the yr, why can't she compete in GP Gold or GP type tourneys? Why only allow her to compete in SS type tourneys just because she is ranked in the top 28??
- Yes, that's one of my suggestion to increase the prize money. But what is the reality??
Do you think 13 tourneys is enough for top 28 players w/the prize money being offered??..
- If you don't need the money, then you must be loaded, like Taufik..

- Sorry, i had to re-read your 1st point above...

**limsy** · 10-01-2009, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by ctjcad

- So, why can't a GP Gold tourney allow player w/a WR higher than 28 to compete? Why set it to only the top 28 players? Why can't it be set to top 20 or 25 or 30 or 35?

same sentence,28 is the ss main draw player ==|||

My point was, why limit the number of tourneys a player wants to participate in. If, for example, Julia Wong is ranked 26th in the world, has been out for 1/2 yr and just recovered from injury, but she has 6 months left to play in the yr, why can't she compete in GP Gold or GP type tourneys? Why only allow her to compete in SS type tourneys just because she is ranked in the top 28??

her wr will definiately drop to >28th

- Yes, that's one of my suggestion to increase the prize money. But what is the reality??
Do you think 13 tourneys is enough for top 28 players w/the prize money being offered??..
- If you don't need the money, then you must be loaded, like Taufik..

if u dont limit the participation of top rank player,what those low rank player eat?

- Sorry, i had to re-read your 1st point above...

haiz
abit speechless

**ctjcad** · 10-01-2009, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by limsy

same sentence,28 is the ss main draw player ==|||

her wr will definiately drop to >28th

if u dont limit the participation of top rank player,what those low rank player eat?
...

- I don't quite get it..??...I guess what you're trying to write is, BWF rules only allow the top 28 ranked players to be in the SS main draw??..is that what you're trying to convey??..
- I mean, if she was ranked 10th before she got injured then dropped all the way to 26th but is ready to play again. Does that mean she can't compete in other GP or GP Gold tourneys?
- That's what my suggestion (a few posts back) involves. Increase the prize money and/or increase the no. of tourneys.
That way, a player like Julia Wong who was injured and out for a long time would be able to compete in additional tourneys, even though she is ranked 20th or 28th by the time she's ready to play. That she's not restricted to play in other GP or GP Gold tourneys just because of her WR.

**limsy** · 10-01-2009, 06:29 PM

haha
i mean i suggest

fainted already
ok lah,need to doasignment already
case close

**Loh** · 10-02-2009, 02:38 AM

Compared to the world's most successful sportsmen, Tiger Woods, professional badminton players are earning pittance!

The way BWF tournament prizes and incentives are currently awarded to the professionals, I wonder how those who hardly qualify to the QF stage can ever survive "adequately"!

A breakdown of the world's top 50 badminton professionals for the past 5 years would be useful to reveal the truth. But can we ever obtain the details, the information, the transparency?

Those in the top bracket should include LD, TH, LCW, PG .... What about the ladies? How much are we talking about?

Here is an article on the awesome Tiger. Keep on dreaming BWF pros!

The Straits Times
Oct 2, 2009

Woods breaks US$1b barrier

LOS ANGELES - TIGER Woods has become the first sportsman to break through the billion-dollar earnings barrier, Forbes magazine reported on Thursday.

The 33-year-old American, who has won 14 majors, reached the latest landmark of his career when he won a US$10 million (S$14.2 million) bonus for his FedEx Cup victory last weekend.

According to the magazine's calculations, Woods went into the 2009 season on US$895 million which included prize money, endorsements, appearance fees as well as money earned through his golf course design business.

Even before picking up his end of season bonus, Woods had earned US$10.5 million on the USPGA Tour this year, winning six titles.

Woods has been the top-earning sportsman since 2002 when he took over from former Formula One world champion Michael Schumacher.

His most lucrative commercial deal is with Nike and brings him over US$30 million a year.

Forbes estimated that retired NBA star Michael Jordan will be the next sportsman to earn US$1 billion.

Jordan amassed around US$800 million in his playing career and continues to make US$45 million a year thanks mainly to a deal with Nike. -- AFP

**Loh** · 10-02-2009, 02:57 AM

How much better in terms of skills, fitness, discipline and training time that Tiger, Michael Jordan and other highly paid sports professionals have over our top-notch badminton professionals?

When will badminton professionals be able to attain that sort of pay day that mostly US based sport people can attain? Does it mean that if badminton is unable to be marketed well and received support in the US, it is doomed to failure?

What about sports personalities in other sports? NBA and EPL are thriving.
Perhaps even Table-tennis gives out better incentives all round.

**ctjcad** · 10-02-2009, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by Loh

How much better in terms of skills, fitness, discipline and training time that Tiger, Michael Jordan and other highly paid sports professionals have over our top-notch badminton professionals?

When will badminton professionals be able to attain that sort of pay day that mostly US based sport people can attain? Does it mean that if badminton is unable to be marketed well and received support in the US, it is doomed to failure?

What about sports personalities in other sports? NBA and EPL are thriving.
Perhaps even Table-tennis gives out better incentives all round.

- Badminton is a totally different sport than other pro sports, so it's hard to quantify if badminton athletes are better/not better in skills, fitness, discipline & training time to athletes like Tiger Woods, Air Jordan, Cristiano Ronaldo. Badminton is generally a finesse sport. The closest sport to baddy is tennis; but there are still quite a bit of differences between the 2.

- I don't think U.S. based sports can be used exclusively to compare badminton with. You've got soccer/footie/football, tennis, golf and F1 racing over in Europe and S. America that are as popular as any other U.S. sports. But yes, the majority of the well paid/sponsored sports in the world have strong fan support bases in western countries. I don't think badminton is doomed for failure if it fails to enter western/U.S. markets. But most likely it'll stay relatively the same/stagnant with the way it is now.

- Of course sports personalities in other larger sports are thriving. They're thriving simply because of the market and the size of their fan/team base.
As for table-tennis' prize money or incentives, here's a link showing their prize-money distribution. I'd say they are comparable to badminton, maybe a bit more.
http://www.ittf.com/_front_page/ittf...ry=prize_money

While you're at it, you can hover over to see what the table-tennis WR offers. Maybe that's another system to consider?
http://www.ittfranking.com/

Originally Posted by Loh

...
A breakdown of the world's top 50 badminton professionals for the past 5 years would be useful to reveal the truth. But can we ever obtain the details, the information, the transparency?

Those in the top bracket should include LD, TH, LCW, PG .... What about the ladies? How much are we talking about?
...

..i've attached a table below showing the prize money distribution @ the recent Li Ning Super Series tourney. And i would take it, they're roughly the same percentage amt. for every SS tourney. Btw, the total prize money was $250,000.
So, for LD, he will get abt $18,7500 ($250,000 x 7.5%) if he becomes the champion. I'll let you guys do the calculation for the rest.
Then if one wants to know how much would LD or LCW earn if they were to win 6 SS titles, then we can calculate $18,750 x 6 = $112,500. Of course, if they have to pay back some percentage to the national body, the total would be less. The likelihood for most of them to win 6 SS titles is slim & tough. And the only player who could possibly get that many is LD.
Here is the link:
http://09cbmcz.cba.org.cn/en/gl/2009-07-14/256930.html

**laivc** · 10-23-2009, 02:37 AM

A simple suggestion will be to average out the current points of each player by the number of competitions the players took part in. Based on this, the score from the current BWF World Ranking (2009-43) will look like this (interesting finding):

Rank Players Ave Pts Total Pts Competition Curr BWF Rank
1 Lin Dan 8743.07 69944.58 8 2
2 Chen Jin 6056.36 66620.00 11 4
3 Lee Chong Wei 5358.07 80371.06 15 1
4 Sony Kuncoro 5261.37 47352.04 4 9
5 Peter Gade 5202.71 67635.18 13 3
6 Taufik Hidayat 5121.54 66580.00 13 5
7 Park Sung Hwan 4613.89 55366.67 12 6
8 Nguyen Tien Minh 3593.57 50310.00 14 7
9 Boonsak Ponsana 3483.70 48771.75 14 8
10 Wong Choong Hann 2438.95 46340.00 19 10

**Jonc108** · 11-20-2009, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by laivc

A simple suggestion will be to average out the current points of each player by the number of competitions the players took part in. Based on this, the score from the current BWF World Ranking (2009-43) will look like this (interesting finding):

Rank Players Ave Pts Total Pts Competition Curr BWF Rank
1 Lin Dan 8743.07 69944.58 8 2
2 Chen Jin 6056.36 66620.00 11 4
3 Lee Chong Wei 5358.07 80371.06 15 1
4 Sony Kuncoro 5261.37 47352.04 4 9
5 Peter Gade 5202.71 67635.18 13 3
6 Taufik Hidayat 5121.54 66580.00 13 5
7 Park Sung Hwan 4613.89 55366.67 12 6
8 Nguyen Tien Minh 3593.57 50310.00 14 7
9 Boonsak Ponsana 3483.70 48771.75 14 8
10 Wong Choong Hann 2438.95 46340.00 19 10

I had posted previously advising the same... maybe an improved version could be just average out their best 7-10 competition results...

the current WR system is mainly based on "quantity" due to its point distribution not given the winners a significant recognition...

**t3tsubo** · 11-21-2009, 01:38 AM

I previous post on a different ranking for seeding and for "show" purposes seems like a good idea, similar to the one tennis has for grand slams. What about the following semi-radical change:
Each major SS tournament's organizers can decide how to seed players based on 3 things: Their overall world ranking, their performance at this specific tournament in the previous year and the organizer's own discretion (for cases such as returning from injury, temporary retirement etc). It places a bit of trust in the tournament organizers yes, but it seems to be like the best way to go. Complaints (ie china team evenly distributing their players so as not to clash) can be made to the BWF, but beyond the 1st and second seed, the rest should all be randomly placed anyways (ie 3rd and 4th seed random between top or bottom half of the draw).

What do you think?

**Jonc108** · 11-24-2009, 02:46 AM

Regarding suggestions on improvement on the current ranking system, maybe we could try to look at the current ranking system from another perspective, take the SS ranking point distribution for example:

(see attached Table 1)

You could see that this is against common logic; the easiest game (Round 1 losers) would get the most points. The more difficult games you played (Round 2 to Finals, except the winner, who however didn’t earn as much as the Rd 1 losers), the fewer points you got…

So a reasonable award to a win is that every win should guarantee same ranking points, if not more (which is also logical, as the further you progress, the more difficult games would be expected).

(see attached Table 2)

And then bonus points could be awarded if you beat a player with higher current ranking.

this system is at least paying reasonable respect to players' achievements and efforts...

**Jonc108** · 11-24-2009, 03:07 AM

alternative ranking point system - tables 1 & 2:

**skuo2003** · 12-03-2009, 12:10 PM

One thing to keep in mind when considering world rankings is that rankings isn't so much about who really is the best in the world right now--it is a reward system for past accomplishments. As in, because Lee Chong Wei HAS competed in so many tournaments and done reasonably well, he is ranked number 1. Thus, he gets the easiest draw (arguably) in tournaments by being seeded 1. The ranking system as it is now, provides incentive for players to actually go to tournaments, so if being world number 1 really means something to Lin Dan and the Chinese team, he needs to attend tournaments. As people have mentioned, it matters also for lesser ranked players so that players who have accomplished a certain amount and made it to the world's top 30 or so can enter Super Series tournaments without going through qualifying.

I do NOT believe seeding in tournaments should at all be arbitrary (i.e. up to tournament organizers) because, again, seeding is a way to reward top players for their recent accomplishments, and the seeding order need not to correspond to perceived skill level. (If it did, how would one handle an up-and-rising star? It would only be fair for him to also work his way up the rankings by winning tournaments.) Factors such as results in same tournament in the previous year or injuries may be considered, but I believe there should be systematic way devised to take into those considerations.

(For the record, tennis only has different seeding orders at Wimbledon, in which they consider previous GRASS COURT performance, and not any any of the other three majors.)