You can't take Badminton and any other professional based sports such like Tennis as the same category. Professional Tennis players are mostly independent players so of course winning any gold or title for their country don't really mean much to them. Meanwhile most top badminton players are all under their national association. Therefore being a part of the national team means their priority and goals highly related to national pride more than just individual titles. And for Korea too, in badminton AG is much more meaningful than WC or AE. That's why they withdraw their players from WC to prepare for AG instead. So it's meaningless to compare Badminton to other commercially success sport like Tennis. And major titles in Badminton are those which offer no money prize and having their national flag and anthem to be presented in the ceremonies.
OK, this post clarifies your point. Actually, though, it's not true in tennis that "winning any gold or title for their country don't really mean much" to tennis players. The Olympics didn't use to be a big deal, but starting in around 2008 it became a huge deal and now you see all the best players - Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, etc. - trying to win Olympic gold with as much passion as they'll show at any Grand Slam event. For example, Djokovic was crying after he lost in the first round in Rio de Janeiro to Del Potro. Nadal was gutted when he lost the bronze-medal match to Nishikori. Federer and Wawrinka played their hearts out to win the 2008 men's doubles gold. The Asian Games, however, truly don't mean anything to the Asian tennis players, and I think that's at least partly because the level of competition (which would be far, far below that of a Grand Slam tournament even if every top Asian played) makes it a minor event. As to your point that "major titles in badminton are those which offer no money prize," I can agree with this. I know from tennis that money does nothing to lend prestige to an event. And I'm not saying the AG is not a really big deal. I just rank the events like this: 1. Olympics 2. World Championships 3. Asian Games 4. Sudirman/Thomas/Uber Cups. Then, after that, I guess All England. Finally, as far as Korea, I guess Son Wan Ho withdrew, but Lee So-hee/Shin Seung-chan and Sung Ji-hyun both played the WC. Truthfully, South Korea didn't have a strong title contender in any category. Are you saying if they had a dominant No. 1 player or team that they would be pulled out of the WC so they could prepare for the AG? Maybe you're right, but in 2014, South Korea won gold, silver and bronze in MD just three weeks before the start of AG.
Possible. His pro team in Incheon thinks he is, according to the Korean newspapers. His calf muscle might still overrule this, however.
I don't really know much about tennis so I can't say anything more on that. But then again, tennis isn't that big in Asia. If you considered those ranks from your own point of view then it could be. But for badminton players in Asia, AG is considered bigger than WC. If you had to choose one event it is obvious which one Asia country would send their players to. It's not harder in frequency wise to get WC medals than AG medals because it is held once every year except Olympic year. That's why winning AG medals is considered bigger and higher than WC in Asia for Asian players. If Marin had win most of the titles apart from her WC, then it would be 'less' competition for WS. But otherwise, I don't think even having Marin around would have raised the level of competition in WS. And for Korean, did you know that if players won a medal (not sure if it had to be gold or just any medal) in AG, they can be exempted from the military obligation? But nothing would be offered for any Badminton World Championship title holder. That's how higher rank AG is compared to WC to Korea or maybe any other country.
Men's Team Rankings for Draw: 1.China 2.Indonesia 3.Japan 4.Taiwan 5.Malaysia 6.India 7.Korea 8.Thailand 9.Hong Kong 10.Nepal 11.Maldives 12.Pakistan 13.Mongolia Women's Team Rankings for Draw 1.Japan 2.China 3.Thailand 4.Korea 5.Indonesia 6.Taiwan 7.India 8.Hong Kong 9.Maldives 10.Pakistan 11.Nepal 12.Mongolia
Team Draws: Top 2 seeds are placed at 1 and 16 Seeds 3 and 4 are placed at 5 and 12 The remaining seed placings are decided from random draw.
Normally, esp. for Asians,international multi-sport events are usually considered of higher status than single-sport events. But, personally, as far as badminton is concerned, I'd rate the OG/WC a little higher than Asian Games simply because it's meant only for Asians, not the rest of the world. So in a way it's not entirely fair to equate them at the same level. By the way, I also understand the Asian Games team event is placed above the individual event in importance despite both events contributing to the overall medal tally. That's because the team event is a team effort for national glory whereas the individual event is part national and part personal glory, as nation above self is widely held as a shared value in virtually every country in Asia, generally speaking. As for prize money, while it's true the OG , WC and AG don't provide any per se, we know, esp for the Olympics, the medalists, particularly for gold , do get rewards in cash and/or kind, which can be quite substantial for winning Olympians ,and to a lesser extent for Asian Games medalists. Even for the world championships, some nations do offer cash and/or in-kind rewards and often, where no direct rewards from the state are given, more often than not, the winning athletes are targeted by private sponsors for fairly attractive, if not lucrative, deals and contracts. Obviously , it's different for each country but for badminton-crazy countries ,it's always the case that winners are quite richly rewarded, including title awards as in Malaysia (LCW being granted Datukship, even despite not winning any OG/WC/AG title but in recognition for his remarkable accomplishments in badminton for the nation, specifically after winning silver at the Beijing'08 OG).
I understand that MAS is not taking part in both the women's team and individual events. Why ? I think MAS women players have a fighting chance to medal in all the categories, the individual a bit more than the team events.
It is called "Asian Games" i.e. for Asian players only which makes the Gold medalists crowned recognized the best in Asia. Continental games are the second biggest sport event in the world after Olympic Games. It would never be the same as World individual sport annual events. So to say Asian Games rated lower because it is not for the rest of the world and less competitive because of that exact reason doesn't make sense at all, in my opinion.
The Asian Games is not necessarily less competitive than the WC or OG as far as badminton is concerned, only less representative as a world event, so it's not fair to equate it to the WC or OG. For the Asian nations , of course, it's as big as the Olympics and the World Championships, even for badminton alone.
Someone wrote before that the issue is the difference between what the players want to achieve and what their fans want them to achieve. I'm thinking maybe there's a gap between what an Asian player and his/her Asian fans want and what fans from other regions want for their favorite Asian player/team. I'm a fan of TTY, Momota and Watanabe/Higashino, but since I'm not Asian I admit I don't really care that much about how Chinese Taipei does in Uber/Sudirman or how Japan does in Uber/Thomas/Sudirman. I suppose I want those countries to go as far as they can but only so I can see more of my favorite players in action. Also as a non-Asian fan, I want those players' "international badminton legacies," for lack of a better phrase, to be as great as possible. In the case of Momota and Watahiga, maybe they can can boost their legacies as much or even more by winning the Asian Games than they can by winning the WC. I guess there are differences of opinion on this. But for WS, I think it's very hard to argue that an AG title is more important than a WC. And that's because of Marin. Because she's coming in with this laser focus and insane intensity at every major event (OG/WC) she's eligible to play and virtually winning all of them with every top Asian player in the field, it's not enough for me that TTY wins the AG. What I want more than anything else for her (and I think most of her fans, at least outside of Asia, would agree) is to win Olympic gold or the WC, preferably crushing Marin in the process.
What I find interesting is that the game's best ladies singles players never win this tournament - from Susi Susanti to Ye Zhaoying, Zhang Ning, Xie Xing Fang!
If you asked any Asian badminton players of their goal this year, most of them would answer Asian Games and some would add WC. And personally, I would like my favorite players to win AG than WC too. But let's say if Marin to compete in European Games, would her Gold medal be less "value" because all the other top 15 players are from Asia and can't compete in European Games? You can't have Marin in AG and that's that. No point of arguing. Winning medals here won't have anyone (except non Asian fans probably) doubted their status as the best in Asia winning medals for their country. It would be different for the MS because LCW withdrew from the event though... For you winning AG is a smaller matter, but for the players themselves and their whole country it is much a bigger deal. For WC probably only badminton fans would watch you, but for AG the whole nation would pay attention at you and expecting you to win the medals. That's even much more pressure for the players. Their status as top athletes are on the line than more just top badminton players. As far as legacies go, anyone of their country would remember the AG Gold medalist more than a badminton WC Gold medalist I should say. And personally, I am so glad that Marin is not an Asian. Not because I don't want her to win here, but simply because I can't stand her nor her play.
I think its because badminton is traditionally strong in Asia and the field always consists of the top players in the region. However its really a regional event, I mean who even remembers kanako yonekura whom beaten Ye Zhaoying and Gong Zhichao in 1998? Tells a lot about the prestige of winning AG
Well, we're definitely in agreement about Marin. The best I can say about her is I respect her desire to win, and I'll just leave it at that. Anyway, this thread has been interesting to me in terms of learning something about how important the AG is. However, I'm still confused about why the top Asian players will not be in action in tennis in Indonesia. So I'll give you a hypothetical. Let's say you're Kei Nishikori's father and he comes to you for advice. He's 28 years old and ranked No. 23 in the world. He is a great player who has been to a US Open final before. That said, the competition is extreme: Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic have all won Grand Slam titles this season and will be champing at the bit to win in New York as part of their Grand Slam titles race. At age 28, time is running out for Kei to win Grand Slam titles. However, the Asian Games only comes around every four years and he has a "golden chance" to win at least one gold medal for Japan in men's singles. Who knows? Maybe he could win in men's doubles and mixed doubles as well. What should he do? I've heard the reasons for why the Asian Games is more important for badminton players than tennis players, but what would you advise your hypothetical son, Kei, to do if he came to you for advice: US Open or Asian Games?
no, it's easier to argue the contrary. what about all those years marin didn't exist? is it only less prestigious now than previous years/eras because of marin? what about when marin is no longer a threat/retires? does the prestige go back up in your eyes? the ag has a deeper draw than wc because of quotas in the wc (and olympics), which means ag is harder to win, which is why asian athletes hold it in higher regard than wc for badminton. quotas taint draws. uk's ellis/landridge would likely have never won the md bronze in rio without the quota system. is their bronze tainted to you, a then casual fan? was wimbeldon less prestigious pre-eastern bloc/communist regime travel restrictions? navratilova could likely have won it before she defected to the usa. what about all the years when athletes from lower socio-economic demographics never had the opportunity to compete in wimbeldon, or <insert any sport/any tournament here> ? continuing to compare badminton to tennis, or any other sport, continues to make less and less sense. tennis runs like tennis. badminton runs like badminton. tennis athletes don't care how badminton is run, and vice versa. you still haven't addressed the prestige of the 1980 & 1984 olympics. the boycotts affected all sports: team & individual. are all the medals regarded as tainted by the victorious athletes? sports fans need to approach each sport according to its history.
OK, let's see if I can address all of your points. As I said above, my concern is with a player's overall worldwide legacy. So let's say TTY ends her career with 2 Asian Games titles, 1 Olympic gold and 0 WC titles, and Marin has 1 Olympic gold and 5 WC titles, I think most badminton fans around the world, despite their distaste for Marin, would say that the Spaniard had the better overall career. How can we say TTY is superior? Because of her AG titles that she won without Marin in the draw? Maybe if I were Asian, the Asian Games would mean more to me as a fan. But I see it as a prestigious tournament but also one that's marred by the fact that it's not accessible to great players from other regions. Again, this only matters if there is a truly great player who is barred from competing. For example, I see the MS as more significant this year because Axelsen, despite being No. 1, is really not looking like a world-beater at the moment. It would be different if he had just won the WC in the same fashion Marin just did. As for the future of the AG, I believe that anytime you have a dominant player who is ineligible to participate that takes away from the prestige of the event. So if for whatever reason European or North American (or African or South American) athletes are dominating badminton 50 years from now (or even if half of the great players were from other regions), for me this would make the AG less significant. Just like now I consider the European Championships in badminton as fairly insignificant since all the great Asian players aren't there. As for your question about the prestige of Wimbledon, I think it's clear that Wimbledon's prestige was diminished in the 1960s, for example, when the professionals were barred from competing. How can any tournament be considered the "world championships" of its sport when the fans know the best players aren't there? Proof of this is that whenever tennis fans or pundits refer to the greatest players in the history of that sport, no one mentions Roy Emerson, even though he has 12 Grand Slam titles (the all-time record until 2000), including two Wimbledons. And I believe that even if Emerson had 5 Wimbledon titles and 15 Grand Slam titles his status would barely be any higher. And finally, with the 1980 and 1984 Olympics, the way I see it is that it all depends on the sport. The question is were the greatest athletes there or not. Let's say the sport is table tennis and China boycotts the Olympics. For you, that would have no effect on the prestige of the medals won? What if whoever wins gold in Ma Long's absence loses to Ma in the quarter-finals of the next WC 11-5, 11-3, 11-3, 11-4? You don't think everyone would say that that gold medalist "only won because the Chinese weren't there"? Anyway, I can tell by this point in the conversation we're not going to convince one another of anything. As I said above, I think there's a key divergence in how things are viewed from an Asian and a non-Asian standpoint and maybe it's difficult for each side to fully understand the other's point of view.
Personally, I am not quite sure whether Japan's badminton world holds the Asian Games in as high a regard as the World Championships. Generally speaking, the response to the AG is rather muted in the country as a whole, irrespective of the Games' comprehensive nature. Despite Asia's prominence in badminton, on the psychological level, Japan would prefer to win medals on the world stage, and not in what is essentially deemed a regional competition. With respect to the players, just take Momota, for example. As he is already "World Champion", it would be hard to argue that becoming "Asian Games Champion" would supersede this. As far as Japanese badminton is concerned, I believe that the significance of the AG can summed up as a chance for bonus medals, especially if these go to players who did not shine at the BAC or WC. And possibly, there will be an emphasis on winning the team, rather than individual event. Looking for evidence of how Japan's NBA assesses the AG in terms of prestige, I looked at the NBA's regulations for apportioning points earned in international competitions to Japan's domestic ranking table. (https://www.badminton.or.jp/ranking/kitei/201801point.pdf) <Japanese>. According to the provisions, a player will earn the most points (2000, to be exact) if s/he wins the Olympics or World Championships. These two events are placed on the same level, regardless of their differing nature. By contrast, on the calculation table, the AG is deemed to fall into the Asian Tournament category (the same as the BAC), and a champion will only earn 1200 points, ... i.e., roughly the same as a Super 500. Vis-à-vis badminton, in Japan, the only competition that looms larger than the World Championships is the Olympics.
I can't believe how they could regard AG at the same level as BAC or lower than WC. Making all other Asia countries that have been putting every bit of their best effort and everything on AG look like a joke or something.
