In what way?? Nobody ever try to discriminate by race. If that happens so, then it would be for all the asians not for a particular country alone. Badminton is for all the nations not for a particular country. If you have more than 3 players in top 8 and you are not allowed to play , then your country need to decide how to proceed further. They can create more local tournaments for these players which according to some of the members here is more competitive than superseries tournaments. No discrimination, No neglection and No partiallity. They have taken right steps to broaden the area which was very narrow till now. BWF still need to address various issues regarding walkovers which are very much necessary to badminton.
You are missing my point.. Asia is still the best in badminton than any other continents at present. Hence i said like that. But still BWF don't not have any intention to separate or discriminate a particular country. They are trying to increase the growth of badminton by imposing rules of this kind (trying to control the domination of a particular country , so that popularity of this sport goes beyond a particular limit).
So you say that BWF is controlling the domination of a particular country, but this isn't discrimination? Well it may not be discrimination in the technical definition of the word, but the intent is definitely there. And like mentioned before, if the BWF really wanted to use this rule to promote the growth of the sport in other countries, why not change the rule to 2 athletes only when both are in the top 8 instead of the top 16 like it is now? That frees up a whole host of places rather than just 1 from each discipline under the current rule. How about flipping this? The top 30-40+(the exact numbers seem to vary a bit) ranked players all participate, and 1 continental wildcard is given in each discipline. If you're not eligible, that's because you're not the top XXth or you're not the top in your continent. Tough luck! If you want to play, you better make sure you are!
This has to be without doubt, one of the most asinine posts I've ever seen. If a country has more than 3 in the top 8 and won't be allowed to participate in tournaments. Why would those outside the top 3 PARTICIPATE IN THE SPORT? Unless you're number 4 or 5 where it's at least within reach, you have no hopes of earning money/glory/what have you by participating international tournaments, by the time you're just over 20 (if you're in China), you'd quite the sport. How does this improve the sport? It sure as hell doesn't make other countries better. It just weakens the dominant nation and by extension, the sport.
Here's a good examples of the debacle created by allowing non-qualified nations to participate. Comes just at the right time too: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ntroversial-dominica-olympic-skiers?hpt=hp_t3
There are always winners and losers for all these changes for qualification, but unfortunately the losers are those who’re too good and the winners are those just c**p! Using today’s ranking lists as an example, not just China will suffer. Top 32 singles will be denied of their places are; Code: [TABLE="width: 500"] [TR] [TD][TABLE="class: grid, width: 192"] [TR] [TD="width: 64"]MS[/TD] [TD="width: 64"][/TD] [TD="width: 64"][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Rank[/TD] [TD]Country[/TD] [TD]Player[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]9[/TD] [TD]China[/TD] [TD]WANG Zhengming[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]17[/TD] [TD]Japan[/TD] [TD]Takuma UEDA[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]19[/TD] [TD]Indonesia[/TD] [TD]Dionysius Hayom RUMBAKA[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]21[/TD] [TD]India[/TD] [TD]K. Srikanth[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]22[/TD] [TD]India[/TD] [TD]Ajay JAYARAM[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]23[/TD] [TD]Japan[/TD] [TD]Sho SASAKI[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]25[/TD] [TD]Denmark[/TD] [TD]Hans-Kristian VITTINGHUS[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]26[/TD] [TD]Denmark[/TD] [TD]Viktor Axelsen[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]27[/TD] [TD]China[/TD] [TD]SONG Xue[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]28[/TD] [TD]China[/TD] [TD]Yuekun CHEN[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]29[/TD] [TD]India[/TD] [TD]R. M. V. Gurusaidutt[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]30[/TD] [TD]Chinese Taipei[/TD] [TD]HSU Jen Hao[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]32[/TD] [TD]Hong Kong[/TD] [TD]WONG Wing Ki[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Code: [TABLE="width: 500"] [TR] [TD][TABLE="class: grid, width: 192"] [TR] [TD="width: 64"]WS[/TD] [TD="width: 64"][/TD] [TD="width: 64"][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]4[/TD] [TD]China[/TD] [TD]WANG Shixian[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]12[/TD] [TD]Thailand[/TD] [TD]Nichaon JINDAPON[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]16[/TD] [TD]Japan[/TD] [TD]Minatsu MITANI[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]17[/TD] [TD]Thailand[/TD] [TD]Busanan ONGBUMRUNGPAN[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]19[/TD] [TD]China[/TD] [TD]HAN Li[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]23[/TD] [TD]Thailand[/TD] [TD]Sapsiree TAERATTANACHAI[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]25[/TD] [TD]Indonesia[/TD] [TD]Belaetrix MANUPUTI[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]26[/TD] [TD]Spain[/TD] [TD]Beatriz CORRALES[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]27[/TD] [TD]China[/TD] [TD]YAO Xue[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]28[/TD] [TD]Japan[/TD] [TD]Yui HASHIMOTO[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]29[/TD] [TD]Indonesia[/TD] [TD]Aprilia YUSWANDARI[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]30[/TD] [TD]Chinese Taipei[/TD] [TD]PAI Hsiao Ma[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]31[/TD] [TD]Indonesia[/TD] [TD]Hera DESI[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]32[/TD] [TD]Hong Kong[/TD] [TD]CHAN Tsz Ka[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Top 16 pairs will be denied of their places are; Code: [TABLE="width: 500"] [TR] [TD][TABLE="class: grid, width: 256"] [TR] [TD="width: 64"]MD[/TD] [TD="width: 64"]Country[/TD] [TD="width: 64"]Player1[/TD] [TD="width: 64"]Player2[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]9[/TD] [TD]Indonesia[/TD] [TD]Angga PRATAMA[/TD] [TD]Ryan Agung SAPUTRA[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]12[/TD] [TD]Korea[/TD] [TD]LEE Yong Dae[/TD] [TD]YOO Yeon Seong[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]14[/TD] [TD]Malaysia[/TD] [TD]Khim Wah LIM[/TD] [TD]V Shem GOH[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]15[/TD] [TD]Japan[/TD] [TD]Takeshi KAMURA[/TD] [TD]Keigo SONODA[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]16[/TD] [TD]China[/TD] [TD]CHAI Biao[/TD] [TD]HONG Wei[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]WD[/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]5[/TD] [TD]China[/TD] [TD]BAO Yixin[/TD] [TD]TANG Jinhua[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]9[/TD] [TD]Japan[/TD] [TD]Reika KAKIIWA[/TD] [TD]Miyuki MAEDA[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]10[/TD] [TD]Indonesia[/TD] [TD]Nitya Krishinda MAHESWARI[/TD] [TD]Greysia POLII[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]12[/TD] [TD]China[/TD] [TD]TIAN Qing[/TD] [TD]ZHAO Yunlei[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]13[/TD] [TD]Korea[/TD] [TD]KO A Ra[/TD] [TD]YOO Hae Won[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]14[/TD] [TD]Indonesia[/TD] [TD]Aprilsasi Putri LEJARSAR VARIELLA[/TD] [TD]Vita MARISSA[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]XD[/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]10[/TD] [TD]Indonesia[/TD] [TD]Praveen JORDAN[/TD] [TD]Vita MARISSA[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]11[/TD] [TD]Korea[/TD] [TD]KO Sung Hyun[/TD] [TD]KIM Ha Na[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]13[/TD] [TD]Indonesia[/TD] [TD]Muhammad RIJAL[/TD] [TD]Debby SUSANTO[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]15[/TD] [TD]Indonesia[/TD] [TD]Riky WIDIANTO[/TD] [TD]Puspita Richi DILI[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: right"]16[/TD] [TD]England[/TD] [TD]Chris LANGRIDGE[/TD] [TD]Heather OLVER[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] and are you still think it's good for badminton?
To introduce this 2-person max rule ahead of RIO (I call it making rule on the fly, clearly to contain CHN domination), when the players, say CHN MS, have been training all their lives preparing to play OLY16, but denied by this rule, is bordering on criminal. This rule basically destroys many players aspirations. For those who embrace and accept this rule, how do you feel if you are the third player affected by this rule when you train all your life for this moment, that you would have qualified in OLY12 but disqualified for OLY16 because you are too good for the ROW and some nuts introduced this rule without you seeing it coming. If the players know this rule is in place, and they still choose to invest their time playing this sport, so be it.
I'm having a little difficulty in understanding this para from BWF document on the OG2016 qualification system... http://bwfbadminton.org/file.aspx?id=529944&dl=1 ...and the para is (on page 4): "If an athlete qualifies (and is selected) in more than one (1) event, then the unused athlete quota place will be allocated to the next best ranked athlete of the same gender in the singles event on the World Ranking Lists of 5 May 2016. The offer of this Quota Place will however be conditional on the athlete who is qualified in more than one (1) events being confirmed and entered by his/her NOC in the Rio 2016 Olympic Games." Obviously, such an athlete would be a doubles specialist. So the unused quota place would be allocated to a singles player? And from the same NOC or the next on the BWF rankings list?
So, then I found my own Badminton country to join Olympia. Or I change my nationality to Northkorean or Nigerian to participate in Olympia. What I want to say that to make it 100% fair is to give a country with a HUGE population also more Olympia slots.
Hans-Kristian Vittinghus why not?? He is the number 2 Dane. But these lists are not completely relevant anyway, since it's up to the national comittees which 2 players/pairs they want to send, am I right? It doesn't have to be the top 2, even though in most cases I guess it will be. Yeah I think it's a shame too, that so many good players/pairs miss out. They should make the draw twice as big. It's Olympics for god's sake.
If OLY rules stay as is, CHN could send 3 MS/WS to OLY16 and chances of all-CHN final is enhanced. With only 2 players qualified, probability reduce by 1/3. If this rule has been the norm all along, and some chinese kidos still stupidly wants to invest (more like sacrifice) their time pursuing this sport hoping to represent CHN in baddy, then power to that dumb kid. The point is to introduce this rule now mid-way to OLY16 is insanely unfair and blatantly clear to control CHN for having done such a darn good job bringing up a stable of world beaters that the ROW cannot compete. Agree with you that WSX again losing out. So, how does anyone who embrace this rule feels if he/she is WSX or DPY who trained their butts out and gotten screwed. Of course, 'anyone' or IOC does not give a flying care cos it is not them or their children who are affected. Admit it! As for TSB doing jumping jack and cheer leading this parade, better if the rule changes to 1-player only, that will enhance LCW winning gold and getting M$ bonus, TSB gets a share too.
I would agree with you if this rule has been the norm from day 1, that players getting into this sport know this 2-player limit. Refer to Fortune #40 post, IOC is changing the rule like the ice cream flavor of the month. It is so clear the target is CHN for being so strong. As for match fixing, I agree and posted previously that is wrong, but given the priviledge, does anyone think MAS, KOR, INA would not do it? I can sell you some icefields in Canada to grow palm trees. Maybe DEN will play fair, I buy that. As for TT no matter how IOC reinvent the rule, from nuts size, banning super glue, open service, 21-to-11-to 7- and back to 11, banning pimples, CHN still kick butts. If CHN MS/WS competition for the 2-person spot is hard, I cannot imagine TT where the #1 WS can lose to much lower ranked compatriots, 0-4 score. That is insane.
If they did that for all disciplines and games (and why not, eh?), the OG would take an entire season! There are obviously many other factors to be taken into account. BWF is also probably constrained by the limits on number of participants, as well as accounting for the most equitable spread of participation, country- and continent-wise. Besides, BWF needs to play by the OG committee rules. The Olympics is one of the biggest sources of revenue for not just badminton/BWF, but many other games/federations as well. Can't upset the money-bosses! It may not be the most ideal, or the most fair, or the most equitable solution, depending on your individual/national/principled point of view. Therefore, it is a compromise. Like almost everything in life, actually. Even terms of compromise will constantly evolve. I'd be one of the first to stand up and castigate BWF when they go wrong (often spectacularly wrong). But I'd also admit as quickly that I don't know all of the constraints, issues, guidelines and other considerations that go into making a policy decision, simply because I am not privy to all of the information or the thought processes that go into making those decisions. And so, much as I would like to, I will not criticize too loudly or long. I will wait for more information to come forth.
You yourself have given the answer to why BWF wanted to do good for badminton. If all china finals is that what you want, then no need to talk about your worry here. Everybody in this world like to be part of Olympics squad of their country to prove their talent and to widen the awareness of this sport in their locality. This definitely improves the viewership and indirectly creates awareness. You might have willingly concealed the truth behind your back of what happened in London . China can do all the tricks to get all the gold medals . This is one example which i wanted to mention here. No wonder you support your country. But truth is BWF has started to wake up from the sleep to give a true sport to the world without walkovers, mass retirement(that happened in one of the superseries tournaments), deliberate losing etc etc.
because one needed to be in the top16 (singles) and top8 (doubles) to be eligible as your nation's second. there are 27 single players in the top 32, and 16 double pairs in the top 16 been ruled out for bwf to promote badminton. shouldn't this move to the jokes section!
Strange. BWF is no different from the other sports in limiting NOC representation. As previously mentioned in this thread, tennis has limits on numbers and so does judo and athletics. Your sarcasm is noted. However, in common with detractors of a policy that is meant to increase exposure, you extrapolate the argument to "take off". Nobody claimed a "take off" - increasing exposure is merely a step towards increasing awareness to a bigger population. It doesn't mean a population shift. Nice attempt at trying put down the opposing argument but it didn't work Some but not definitely. That would depend on the ranking of the various players (and injuries) at the end of the olympic qualification Exactly, that shows your example of using Lin Dan as a sure win didn't cut much ice. Nobody is assured of sure win. See above comment. And additionally, if you have knowledge on policy, if often takes a combination of factors to produce a desired effect and with policy, the incremental benefits might be small (e.g. education on smoking risk and cessation). Golf and tennis certainly didn't get to their stage overnight.
Excellent statement. Entirely agree, so that undermines phalanx trying to argue for racial discrimination in post #57 Good article but they were not a non-qualified nation. As the article describes, the couple did qualify through proper channels. Just like Vanessa Mae (the violinist) qualifying representing Thailand. They followed the rules - it's up to IOC to have a look at their policies.
