Interesting comment

Txyu,
So true...I guessed it would be the same in Canada too since they would get bigger audience numbers by showing the sports that Canadians are good at (i.e. chance of winning a medal) like swimming (syncronized), diving, track & field, et al.

Chicken and egg. No exposure means that less attraction for the younger kids who would go play other sports. Less kids interested means less interest by the media to report on the sports. For example, when is the last time you heard badminton scores (major tourneys) reported on the so-called Sports Network?

The other thing is the perception that badminton is a laid back activity and as we all know that badminton is the fastest racquet sports in the world.

What to do? The million dollar question...

 

Hmmm, badminton becoming slightly mainstream....not very hopeful but it's good to hear someone in the media is thinking about it. Whether or not someone will do something about it is still....eh....

 

I think that badminton being under rated are because of multi reasons, here are my thoughts:

1. national proudness: like ppl metioned above, badminton is mostly dominated by Asian nations. Never remember north american nations ever won any events in recent years (not talking about 1960 or ealier)

2. style: badminton requires more agility than strength, which north american nations don't like and don't understand. So many ppl think badminton is designed for little girls. I heard someone say, badminton = gay tennis... Basketball, hockey, american football are their choices.

3. image: badminton was highly rec. as a "backyard" sport. Not many ppl ever think it could be such a competive sport. I've heard so many ppl say like this, "u play badminton? hmmm... I can do that, too" Do they really do? Well, if u see them hold racket ($5 for a set ones) using both hands, hitting hardrock plastic birdies like sky high, u know what I mean

4. court: badminton court not necessary to be large, but need to be indoor and the ceiling height need to be 30ft at least. Therefore, only proper gym can fit for the requirement. Not like basketball, baseball, u can just play in the park (more place to play = higher popularity)

5. TV coverage: $$$$$$ only popular ones can generate profit for the TV network

6. Attendance: Basketball stadium can hold 5,000 ppl, baseball and football stadium can hold even more (plus, they can be outdoor). Large capacity = more tickets selling, more commercial opptunity, etc. How many most badminton stadium can hold? So, u know my point....

 

About #5.

We should start a letter writing campaign... encourage stations to show badminton, and applaud them when they do. When the TV execs are considering what to air during free time, badminton doesn't usually come to their minds. With a letter writing campaign, i'm sure it'd boost its chances greatly. Afterall, it was a small group of hardcore fans that sustained Star Trek for 20-30 years. Even if only one person is sending an email, but do it everyday, i'm sure it would work... right?

 

I'm going to be writing CBC some thank you letters right now....

 

lol.. cool point about star trek haha

badminton on the CBC? man Canadians are so hung up on Hockey and Basketball and their dying baseball games. True, a letter campaign may help, but i doubt that is what the average joe out in Manitoba wants to see. yeah, the backyard badminton thing isn't helping the cause, but you can't really show the kids what the game is really about when they play it in class during gym with shotty equipment. thats when we come in.. we get in there, woop their asses, and they whoop some more.. and then tell em tennis, golf and whatever sucks moose antlers. lolol
btw i am canadian

 

It's the same thing here in the Philippines! It's like, when they ask, "hey, what are your sports?" then I say, "my sports? uummm.... shooting, scuba diving, karate, table tennis, and badminton!" then they reply, "badminton? isnt that the game where you play with those feather thingys? Why don't you try tennis instead? It's a hell lot better than badminton and the ball goes faster!". They just see badminton as the backyard sport which is very easy to play. They don't see it the way we see and play it!

 

I think the relatively $$$ on equipment is another reason:

Reasonable graphite beginning rackets cost US $40+ (I mean, besides metal craps), compare to how much baseball, football and basketball cost, badminton is relatively expensive to begin with. Also, birdies goes so fast, even rackets can be broken easier, and always need to be re-strung.

 

somebody has to remind them that basketball was a driveway sport and hockey was a backyard pond(frozen) or street game at one time.

WWC, i dun think CBC broadcast olympic basketball or volleyball because we canadian have a chance of medals as CBC had shown games that we know canada has no chance of medals anyway. The media executive show them because that's what they think canadian audience and advertisers like. CBC and advertisers dun want to make any adventurous move or out of norm programming.

About that phillipines guy, he is just another victim of media coverage, he only knows or likes what were shown on tv. I bet he knows more about tiger wood's statistics than his countrymen sport players.

Same goes for golf, so many people are jumping into it because it is a 'in' sport these days. I see so many golfer wannabes on the golf range which I think they should be on tredmills instead.

 

Don't forget about curling! There was so much network coverage of curling at these last winter olympics, it must have been because it's so popular with our neighbors to the north. I never realized the sport and its stars are so popular up there.

For people like me from the warm weather regions, it looks like a combination of ice bowling and shuffleboard. The best part was when the bowler (?) would shout instructions to the sweepers on how to help the stone. That person certainly has to have a loud voice!

 

I've always maintained that this is a major factor, but not just because of Chinese and Koreans. It would be true of Russians, Indians, and Europeans. There might be some coverage if Canadians or Mexicans were prominent.

I think NBC looks at four elements in determining their coverage:

1. Is is a sport that Americans are familiar with--something easily understood and that they can relate to.

2. Are Americans competative at this level--will they be a factor?

3. Is there a potential for drama in the competition, for an exciting finish?

4. Is there a human interest story there--does one of the athletes have a story about his or her life or training that Americans would find interesting?

With these factors, it's easy to see why track and swimming get most of the coverage--they have all the elements--with diving and ladies' gymnastics not far behind.

 

I can honestly say, nobody cares about curling... even the curling club at my highschool didn't care about curling.. I think they only joined for the free food. I haven't heard curling even mentioned at university. I think they only show curling to satisfy the older generation (200 year olds) and I doubt they can even see TV.

Or maybe txyu's quote is right on... that they only show it cuz Canadians are good at the (because nobody else is crazy enough to take this seriously.)

 

Hey there. I don't want to sound too serious, but I think we should stop making fun of curling. I'm not a curler, and I personally find it boring, but when we make fun of it, aren't we doing exactly what we say other people do about badminton? Aren't we showing our ignorance, in just the same way? Believe me, I've never played the game, but I guarantee that somewhere there's a curling web site where curlers from around the world come together to complain about how, "no one understands curling", and how, "people don't realize how difficult and challenging it really is."

Sound familiar?

 

Re: Re: Interesting comment

By the way, when NBC or any US network decides which sports to put on TV, they only consider point #2.

 

As a displaced Canadian currently living in the US, I've been able to compare the CBC olympic coverage to that of NBC, and I can definitely say that although I have some gripes with CBC, they are still way better than NBC. I think Californian has a good 4 points there. Unfortunately that means the coverage here is very biased. It's not even the biased coverage that annoys me as much as the fact that NBC never shows complete events.

This thread reminds me of an American newspaper reporter (I think it was USAToday or something) who wrote during the Sydney Olympics that they should show badminton, because he was amazed by it after seeing it for the first time. Of course, he also commented that the only reason he started watching it on the cafeteria monitor was because of Camilla Martin. *lol*

A final point about curling, I agree with Shoulderpain. I've tried playing curling 2 times in my life, and it's one of the hardest things I've ever tried. Tons of respect for the rock.

 

Well, i agree with you in general, but there's quite a few differences. When people think of badminton, they don't think of competitive badminton. In curling, all we see is olympic culring. Second, most of the culring players i've spoken to don't think it's a realy sport. Most badminton players feel otherwise.

I'm not saying we should disrespect curling, or any other sport. I'm saying curling is easy. I'm just saying curlers i know of don't take is as seriously as badminton players take badminton.