Results 35 to 48 of 48
10-01-2009, 04:35 PM #35
10-01-2009, 05:16 PM #36
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...
Last edited by ctjcad; 10-01-2009 at 05:20 PM.
10-01-2009, 05:23 PM #37
10-01-2009, 05:42 PM #38
- 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.
10-01-2009, 06:29 PM #39
i mean i suggest
ok lah,need to doasignment already
10-02-2009, 02:38 AM #40
How much have the world's top 50 professionals earned todate?
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
10-02-2009, 02:57 AM #41
Is Tiger better than LD as a professional?
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.
10-02-2009, 04:56 AM #42
Off topic-SS prize money..and future of badminton's popularity..
- 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.
While you're at it, you can hover over to see what the table-tennis WR offers. Maybe that's another system to consider?
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:
Last edited by ctjcad; 10-02-2009 at 05:09 AM.
10-23-2009, 02:37 AM #43
Average the Points Based Numbers of Competitions
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
Last edited by laivc; 10-23-2009 at 02:43 AM.
11-20-2009, 10:10 PM #44
11-21-2009, 01:38 AM #45
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?
11-24-2009, 02:46 AM #46
an effort / achievemt respected system
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 didnít earn as much as the Rd 1 losers), the fewer points you gotÖ
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...
Last edited by Jonc108; 11-24-2009 at 02:55 AM.
11-24-2009, 03:07 AM #47
alternative ranking point system - tables 1 & 2:
12-03-2009, 12:10 PM #48
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.)
By Foreverlove in forum Professional PlayersReplies: 1: 05-20-2009, 10:25 AM
By hcpoirot in forum Professional PlayersReplies: 45: 06-25-2006, 10:14 PM
By Dill in forum Jonas Rasmussen ForumReplies: 0: 10-21-2004, 04:47 PM
By Mag in forum General ForumReplies: 1: 09-07-2002, 08:30 AM
By psichoduck in forum General ForumReplies: 2: 05-02-2002, 10:57 PM