Alan Budi Kusuma and his wife Susi Susanti both won Olympic gold in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics in the singles events.
is it OG/WC the event to prove they are talent??????? how about the world no.1 player along the years but without world championship medal?? is it call suck if that player didnt get any champion on WC???
Susi was one of the women's singles greats, dominating over her peer CHN players until Ye Zhaoying came in to address the balance. But Alan was not so dominant. However at the time INA men's singles got 3 players in the semis and Alan happened to win the title.
Hey guys ... the debate started from my disagreement with 2cents' argument that "Since Tony/Candra never given a chance to play WC and OG, and also limited quotas for each country, WC and OG are much tarnished comparing with any super series." My argument was that "WC and OG are still the most competitive events (and the hardest to win) despite of its country quotas." However, we have all the while agreed that players need not win OG/WC to prove their greatness. You guys don't need to repeat this point over and over again. sabathiel, I still hold my view that WC/OG are the most competitive and the hardest to win badminton events under current circumstances. 2cents has made the point that it's the players who enter to an event determine the competitiveness of it. The point seems to support your view as WC/OG has country quotas while SS events not. However, I have already argued otherwise. Due to the prestige and the hypes of WC/OG, (a) It tends to attract more top players than any other events. For each SS event, there are always a couple or more top players who are potential winners in this coming WC/OG who skip it. For WC/OG, however, all those top players will definitely participate unless for very valid reason (e.g., death of father, injury, or not qualified - it's quite unlikely that a potential winner not qualified except for VERY VERY rare cases like TG/CW). It's more important that an event managed to attract as many top players as possible instead of opening it to everybody and yet half of the top players are there. It's the quality, not the quantity of the participants that determine the competitiveness. Besides, don't forget that SS also has restriction in participations, except that it's less strict than WC/OG - no country quotas, but having limited slots and players have to be qualified by their world rankings. Therefore, SS events are not genuinely "open" events. Having more countries participating in an event has its plus points. Apart from what the IBF wants - to promote the sports in more countries, we spectators prefer greater competitiveness among countries. While you guys hated the country quotas posed to WC/OG, some of our fellow forum posters sit in another extreme of the spectrum by urging IBF to pose country quotas to SS events as well (see earlier postings during AE), as they are sick of seeing Chinese dominations that have made their badminton watching experience far less exciting (e.g., I had no interest in watching the WD match because there are always CHN vs. CHN). (2) I have also raised the point about the psychological effect on the players. Players tend to get nervous easier in prestiguous events as compared to those "just-another-SS-event". The additional requirement in mental toughness makes WC/OG the events that are tougher to win.
KKK/TBH have lifted the record to 2-1 over CW/TG bro.....2 wins straight in Malaysia open and Swiss open..... When CW/TG will beat the MAlaysia Pairs????in WC or OG???? y must WC or OG then only call they are the best...... for example football in olympics seems like not popular as world cup..... if win olympic is it call as world champion or the best in the world???? y must wait until OC or WC???
why the players probably want to win the WC and OG is cuz of its "title".. Come on who will remember 3 times Malaysian Open champion 50 or 60 years from now (except for his own country probably...)... if LCW wins WC, he will be regarded as a World Champion.... thats probably what the players wan it to be.... As for Msians, we want the titles so badly cuz as one of the badminton greats, MAS HAS YET TO WIN THAT TWO TOURNAMENTS!!!! 2003: Wong Choon Hann finished runner-up (WC) 1996: Rashid Sidek finished runner-up (OG) Of course they want to end the drought badly... For Malaysians, winning the WC and OG can cure back the disappointments even if they lost 10 tournaments in a row.... For us, the important is CONSISTENCY!!!!
Rexy came up with the statement saying that he will only regard them as a great pair if they win the Olympics next year is clearly a challenge for them... That is what they are working for... Their target is the Olympics... Rexy is just merely setting a sight for them to see and for them to grap it that's all... If Rexy only cares about money, he wouldn't even care about the results of our pair now as long as BAM is still filling his POCKET!!!!!
Can you please repeat your reasons why you regard the Olympics the most competitive and the hardest to win? I don't think the prestige and the hypes of the Olympics and WC qualifies as a legitimate reason. Consider this in the 90s Indonesia ruled the men's singles in badminton. Indonesia had Alan Budi Kusuma, Hermawan Susanto, Ardy B. Wiranata, Joko Supriyanto, Heriyanto Arbi, Hendrawan, Marleve Mainaky, Bambang Supriyanto etc who all are about the same calibre. If the Olympics only allow 2-3 of those players to compete how can you say that the Olympics is the most competitive and the hardest tournament to win? Obviously not all the best players from Indonesia in this case have a chance to slug it out to win the gold medal. Similarly today China has Lin Dan, Bao Chun Lai, Chen Jin, Chen Yu and even maybe Chen Hong (if he didn't retire) who are pretty much on the elite level of Chinese badminton. How can you say the winner of the Olympics is the best player if some of these elite Chinese players are not allowed to compete due to the quota system? So the quota system leads to a diminishing quality and not just diminishing quantity. It is quality and quantity that are important considerations here. The quantity of quality players at closed tournaments are less than open tournaments. At least the Super Series Opens have a qualifying round and allows for players like KKK/TBH to participate (I think it was in the Malaysian Open or Korean Open they had to go through the qualifying rounds and eventually won the tournament). Simon Santoso who made the Swiss Open final also had to go through the qualifying rounds. Imagine how many matches a player has to win in order to get the title if one plays from the qualifying rounds? Imagine how hard it is to win and how competitive the tournament is. Doesn't this require supreme menta toughness unlike the limited matches one has to win at the Olympics to get the gold. In addition to the total number of matches one has to win (including the qualifying rounds) the title in a SS tournamet consider if one player who made the finals had to go through all his previous rounds in 3 game matches. Imagine the stress and stamina he has to have. The Olympics have less rounds than the Super Series rounds. Having said that I consider the All England more prestigious and more competitive than the Olympics or even the World Championships (especially now the WC is held every year). Players sometimes skip the SS tournament because there are numerous SS tournaments and they are held every year. So if Taufik skipped the All England it is not because the All England is not highly regarded but because Taufik thinks he still can go to the All England the year after. Players do not skip the Olympics because it is held only every 4 years not because the Olympics is more prestigious than the All England. 4 years is a long time in badminton and one's form can change drastically in 4 years time as well new and better players will substantially emerge in 4 years time unlike 1 years time for All England. No tournament is considered genuinely "open" events because not everybody's desire to participate can be accomodated but relatively speaking SS tournaments are more "open" tournaments than the Olympics. So when we say "open" tournaments we can only speak in comparison to "closed" tournaments. How would you see a victory by a Chinese player such as Lin Dan at the Beijing 2008 Olympics at home ground compared to a victory by Lin Dan at the neutral ground of All England? At least England is not a badminton powerhouse so this makes the winner from badminton powerhouses like Malaysia, China, Indonesia, Denmark etc more of an achievement compared to winning on your home ground.
ya..............sabathiel, u straight to the main point........... u give a clearer view between wc and oc
The important thing is that I'm not looking back to the previous WCs but the upcoming WC, since the theme of this thread (at least at the earlier stage) is MAS supporters' hope for KKK/TBH to win WC/OG. My points have been very clear. I posted the "cast list" (actually those who skipped the events) of last year's 4*-6* GP events and WC for your comparison. It has proven that WC's "cast list" is the most impressive one because all the top players (I define it as the small group of players were potential world champions) would not want to miss it. However, for GP events, there were always at least two top players who skipped individual events (AE is almost as prestiguous as WC and therefore it's a special case, but not other GP events). I argue that an event which can attract more of of such potential world champions (or OG gold medalists) are more competitive events then those who attract less. That is, I'm looking into its eventual cast list, not its pre-determined qualification rules. Therefore, when you wrote "Players do not skip the Olympics because it is held only every 4 years not because the Olympics is more prestigious than the All England ...", you were actually supporting my view - WC/OG could attract more top players (based on my definition as stated above) then other events and therefore the quality of the competition is higher. I have also elaborated the mental issues twice and I'm not going to repeat it for the third time.
Considering the limited numbers of matches (rounds) a player needs to get to the finals compared to Open SS tournaments, how worn out would that player be in the finals. In the qualifying rounds of a SS event it is common for a player to play more than once in the same event in a day. This can be considered tough for any player.
they are juz great.. let's juz hope they can maintain until de beijing olympic next year. win more super series 2!! we support u, kien keat, boon heong!!
And now stamina defines a great player does it? You're talking more how physically tough it would be now rather than arguing the skill and playing ability needed to win such an event. How can a player be considered great when they won their final due to the lack of energy of their opponent?
Consistancy is the key to success. And to be consistance you need to keep on working on the basic skill over and over again everyday through traning.
Well, the statistics speak. I've just compiled the MD listing by following the same principle. As several teams broke up after WC'06, I've instead compiled the absentee list of events held during Jan-Aug 06, i.e., right before WC'06. Checking out potential world champions in WC'06 --> CY/FHF, JE/MLH, MK/HS, JJS/LYD, CTF/LWW, TG/CW, Luluk/Alven, KKK/CCM, Anthony/Robert, LP/JR (TG/CW's first international event after they paired up again was INA Open'06. Therefore, I didn't consider the pair being absentees in pre-INA Open'06 events.) Swiss Open - CY/FHF, JE/MLH, MK/HS, CTF/LWW, Luluk/Alven, LP/JR AE - LP/JR China M - JJS/LYD, MK/HS, CTF/LWW, Luluk/Alven, Anthony/Robert, LP/JR INA Open - CY/FHF, JE/MLH, CTF/LWW, KKK/CCM, Anthony/Robert, LP/JR PHI Open - CY/FHF, JE/MLH, JJS/LYD, MK/HS, CTF/LWW, TG/CW, Luluk/Alven, KKK/CCM, Anthony/Robert, LP/JR S'pore Open - CY/FHF, JJS/LYD, TG/CW, LP/JR MAS Open - JE/MLH, MK/HS, TG/CW, Luluk/Alven, Anthony/Robert, LP/JR Taipei Open - JE/MLH, MK/HS, CTF/LWW, TG/CW, Luluk/Alven, Anthony/Robert, LP/JR Macau Open - JE/MLH, MK/HS, TG/CW, Luluk/Alven, KKK/CCM, Anthony/Robert, LP/JR Kor Open - CY/FHF, MK/HS, CTF/LWW HK Open - JE/MLH, JJS/LYD, LP/JR WC'06 - TG/CW (They had only participated in 2 GP events prior to WC'06, i.e., very low ranking.), KKK/CCM (Because CCM's father passed away - an "emergency" case which is not WC's qualification rule's fault.) Being the most prestiguous GP event, AE'06 happened to attract more top MD pairs than WC'06 (but I didn't list down another "absent" pair of AE'06 - TG/CW, who hadn't paired up again till the middle of the year!). For other events, however, there were at least 3 top pairs who skipped each of them. If we combine both the MS and the MD listings, the statistics prove that WC'06 still managed to attract more top players than any GP event despite of its country quotas. I think the only scenario that could make 2cents and sabathiel's arguments valid is that a country dominates a particular category by having more than 4 players/pairs who ALL are potential world champions and at least one of them will not be qualified for WC due to country quotas. Consider China, I think only 3 of their MS players have realistic chances to become the next world champion in coming September (LD, BCL and CJ; while CY and CH could at most be spoilers rather than winners if they are qualified anyway, judging from their present form); same for WS and WD. No country is dominating MD and XD, so the country quota rule is not an issue in these two categories at all. From we the fans' point of view, more countries' participations may increase the level of the competitiveness as well. When a player faces an opponent from another country, he is fighting for his country's honors + his own reputation. On the other hand, when a player faces his own compatriot, he's only fighting for himself (and the two players might know each other's game paly too well because they train together; all these factors make their match less interesting). Frankly speaking, I might skip the TV telecast of all-China finals (most likely the WD finals) even if I'm a fan of Chinese players.
Off topic-Just my 2 cents on this..Some interesting discussion.. (sorry guys to jump in into the fray)... Just want to chime in on this rather trivial issue, if y'all don't mind.. I understand the main points of the discussions, brought on by several members here. And all have their own valid points. However, IMO, it's really hard to "judge" or "argue" this event or that event is more "crucial" or "prestigious" than the other. Or if a player wins this and that title(s) but failed in getting an AE and/or OG and/or WC title, it will "reduce" that player's stature. Also, IMO, another factor in why certain BWF events are considered "elite" is because they have their own commercial implications. Just to take a non-badminton example. Take for example Federer, who we all know has been dominating the world of tennis the last few yrs, with all his accomplishments. Say, he has won all the Grand Slam events but then come the Olympics and he doesn't win the Gold. Does that mean he will be regarded as less of a legend because he doesn't win in the Olympics?.. And let's take a badminton-related example. How abt out Peter Gade?? Has he won the AE, WC or even Olympics??..If he hasn't, does that diminish him of being one of the "greats of badminton"??..It's hard to argue.. Anyways, I think in the end, all types of "elite" or all those so called "most prestigious" tourneys/events, such as All-England, World Championships, Olympics have their own respected prestige. IMO, winning all, 1, 2 or none of them doesn't diminish a player(s) stature in badminton history. It could be simply because of the history of the event and/or it could be because of their commercial/economic implications.
Ya, a great legend doesn't need to win the "prestige" tournament. Like the Netherland team which had Ruud Gullit, Van Basten and Frank Rijkaard, it never win the World Cup but it is still regarded one of the best national team in the history. And nowadays still got many soccer fans like to see their plays in videos.
