Mixed triples?! That's just the racket manufacturers' idea to increase racket sales from more racket clashes.
two in the back, one at the net. funniest game ever! @topic: PLEASE BWF, don't change the scoring system!
Scoring or Otherwise – Athletes First http://www.bwfbadminton.org/news_item.aspx?id=84332 What is this garbage? I read an article after the Thomas Cup asking the top players about changing the scoring system. Lin Dan said it wasn't good for the sport, Jan Jorgensen wen't as far to say it was idiotic, and Pullela Gopichand also said "Neither the players nor spectators are complaining, why is being talked about?" so, WHY IS IT BEING TALKED ABOUT???? and on top of it, they're lying to themselves to prove points! "Badminton Guatemala was held up as a success story, with association president Jose del Busto (below; addressing Member's Forum) detailing how they run country-wide coach education and grassroots programmes to scout talent youth. These players are recruited and relocate to the national training centre where all their training, educational, medical and other needs are met. “Having this in place they can compete regionally and internationally and they are getting good results,” said del Busto, noting that London Olympics 2012 Men’s Singles quarter-finalist, Kevin Cordon, is a product of this system." Kevin Cordon trained with the Spanish team before competing in those world championships. He is not a product of the national training center in Guatemala. He went abroad seeking professional coaching else where. Why is Badminton the only sport changing **** around? The Tennis scoring system doesn't even make sense and makes games last up to 5 hours, but it's not being changed. in my opinion, badminton should have never changed from 15 points. But this happening here is ridiculous. what are your thoughts?
lol, i just realized, Kevin cordon was not a quarter finalist at the olympic games he lost in the last 16. I didn't even see that
Tennis is already on tv and handing out million dollar checks to the winners: why would they have to change anything? It is also a stupid idea to try and copy tennis since it brings nothing new ... The one thing worth copying is is presenting the tour as a (single) travelling circus ...
but didn't tennis started out on tv writing million dollar checks, it grew over the years. Tennis went pro sport long before badminton did, so it's just further developed. and not once did they change the scoring system to attract more attention or publicity. It's like lottery numbers; If you buy one set of numbers and keep them for years, you have a better chance of winning if you bought new ones every week. You know what I'm saying? It's not about the scoring system, it's about promotion, advertisements, and appreciation.
I agree changing scoring system is not the right way to go. Firstly, why have BWF proposed to change this time? What is it they would hope to acheive? I note from the original article linked that they said they wanted to have a game that peaks more. With a game that peaks, you needs slow periods as well to build up to the peaks. Shorten the number of points in a match and the number of swings in the game are gone. It's a folly to extrapolate what happens in badminton leagues to the individual matches - team matches you have more chances for peaks from the individual matches adding up to a team score. If the same scoring system is pushed into Superseries events and Olympics, I can't help thinking the finesse of the game will be reduced. BWF had better look back on when they shortened the mixed doubles match (I think not many people can remember that time). I don't think the players were very complimentary about it. What I see is two different scoring systems occurring. For team events, a scoring system that produces shorter matches is quite possible. For individual events, OG, WC, SS, GPG etc, keep the same scoring system.
Well, I don't agree with saying that the tennis scoring system is better than badminton. I really don't like tennis as I've said in other threads. Tennis is slow, repetitive, and not as physically demanding as badminton. Not even close. The scoring system of tennis begins at 15... For new viewers watching tennis, it would take like 20 minutes to figure out what's going on. If not figuring it out at all. I only know how to play tennis because of Mario Tennis lol. This being said, the simplicity of a scoring system is not the problem nor the length of the match. The original scoring system of badminton was the very best. Does anybody remember the 1995 world championships final (I think is was 95)? The had to carry Sun Jun off court because of cramps. Now that's what I'm talking about. That final was monumental. It had everything. It was 2 hours and ten minutes, but it was awesome. Couldn't take my eyes off the game all the way until the end. So why was it ever changed? 21 is alright, but 15 points forced a player to win a least 2 consecutive rallies to TAKE points from their opponent. Now points are given away (more often). A top player would rarely give away a point in the old scoring system. Never two consecutive mistakes.
Yeah, in 97 but the top players, the very best and fittest, couldn't finish the match! When was the last time you saw a top ten tennis player cramp out? I would like to know statistics of the match. Like distance covered, average shots per rally, how many shots in the whole match...etc. 2 hours and 10 minutes! On the 21 rally point system the longest match I've seen was 1 hour and 40 minutes. And it was 30-29 in the 3rd game. And also, Peter Gade vs Taufik in the All England 2010. 20-22, 22-20, 22-20. Imagine if those matches were in the 15 point system. The options they have released to choose from are all ridiculous. It's just ruining badminton.
They had to carry LCW of the court as well last year in the new system. The original thought was it would shorten matches/ make the duration more predictable and make it easier to negotiate tv slots but that backfired since we now have matches ranging from 20 minutes to an hour and a half + (and there is little interest period from television). Also the rally point system was introduced as the score could be stuck for minutes on end and was seen as boring/confusing for casual viewers ... Tennis' increased popularity and $$$ stems from Olympic inclusion which jumpstarted the wide spread into (Eastern) Europe; it was already glamorous at that time and televised regularly, at least the Grand Slams. But indeed somewhere along the line it became more professional and much commercialized without changing the scoring format (the existence of the ATP probably has something/everything to do with it). Nowadays we are bombarded with just about any tennis tournament on Eurosport television (talk about overkill) but they ditched most of the WTA ones so there isn't much to look at anymore ... But I've dug up and posted this info on tennis before; easily to be found with some clicks @bing/google ... Badminton's prize money seems to be on the level of (women's) tennis in the 1980's. It is inevitable it will keep increasing as it becomes more interesting for corporations to sponsor with increased wealth in middle-class Asia ... Then again what sports are middle-class Asia watching religiously? Seems to me there is more interest in playing than watching badminton ... The order to remember is: tv came first, (bigger) sponsorships followed.
Tennis was good because there were rivalries and personalities mixed in with a bit of glamour. Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert, Martina Hingis, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Steffi Graf. Our top players need to show more passion in the winning. Look at Nadal now. I thought the years Malaysian Open Men's doubles final was great. The behaviour added an extra storyline to the match. There was the game itself and the storyline. That should be played upon in the commentary on the next match. BTW, when do we get to see Martina Hingis on a badminton court? I'd like to volunteer to be her partner...
Stop talking about tennis already, it is SO boring to watch compared to badminton. The current scoring system is fine for spectators and players alike in my opinion. Any other scoring system feel like making the sport a joke. Look at table tennis now ...
Yes I/we can see a lot more table tennis than badminton on Eurosport as well . Your point was ... ? Might not have to do with the scoring system at all but somehow they have negotiated their way into getting some airtime, not much or regularly but still (as opposed to practically none for badminton) ...
Player complaints. After all, the sport is played by them. Current spectators will probably say that the current point system is fine. Look at the TUC, it was more than fine. Shorter sets will be prone to more upsets, and I don't like that as well. The current system has good balance.
Yes it might very well be the company that the BWF sold the [tv]media rights to is behind this idea (IMG). Hard to grow and increase the prize money with limited tv exposure ...
http://bwfbadminton.org/news_item.aspx?id=85879 BWF has decided to trial out a new scoring system. 5 sets of 11 points, no deuce.
