Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2017 Tournaments' started by CLELY, Apr 5, 2017.
BWF Ranking System:
on the whole, it does. however, the top proven euro players lose out: denmark wd/md/xd/ms, adcocks, carolina marin...
wc has no prize money. they play for points & prestige. it is a bwf owned event.
for continentals they'd be playing for money and nat'l pride. i believe the top players would still play in their respective continental for the money/title. or they can choose to take a break. as you've pointed out, it's only 1 tournament.
what if the euro federations could not afford to hold a continental?
what if a certain players were not allowed to play in certain countries for political/immigration reasons?
what if the #1 players in ws/ms/wd/md/xd all came from countries that had no continental?
the point spread is, in part, counter to bwf's mission of promoting badminton worldwide. they are implementing an unequal incentive/bonus/penalty based on geography, yet they have no jurisdiction over the tournaments. if the parity of competition were more equal around the world would there be equal points? whether the answer is yes or no does not matter since bwf has no jurisdiction, and, therefore has no right to impose any incentive/bonus/penalty.
bwf should be 100% hands off and let the continental federations decide if, how and when to hold their tournaments.
that's my opinion and i'm sticking to it.
It's rare for top players needing last minute points to enter the WC like Chen Long's situation this year. The extra points at the top usually go to players who don't need them.
The hottest battles are fought among the second tier players trying to get into Top 24 or to get ahead of their teammates. The fairness of those battles are not severely affected.
The World Championships as the title suggest is a special case, to crown the world champion. The BAC is for the Asian Champion many of whom are also world champion material. Frankly, I always feel there should be big prize money for the WC.
Even when there's no prize money in the tournament itself, there are other rewards in kind,such as lucrative sponsorships for being the world titleholder, not to mention some winners getting both monetary rewards and in kind from the state and the private sector; otherwise,why do you think LCW never gives up trying. Same goes for the Olympics which itself comes without prize money, but, as we know, how much the gold medallists especially stand to gain back home. It's like climbing Mt Everest, no prize offered but the mountaineers or mountain climbers will risk life and limb to climb it - why? Because it's there. Inner satisfaction comes first.The material rewards come later, fame and money.
Like I said, weigh the pros and cons, do a cost-benefit analysis covering all those points you brought up, namely, lack of funds, political considerations/discriminations preventing certain players from participating (Muslim women wearing hijabs? Israel -Palestine conflicts?), top players coming from countries without continental championships (which ones ? Oceania? Affecting how many players, what's their ranking? Are they qualified or playing any SS/PSS tourneys?) - how prevalent are these problems, what's the impact, unforeseen circumstances beyond anyone's control, isolated cases, etc ? Aren't these the same problems and issues affecting practically the whole spectrum of professional sports, the entire range of tournaments big and small ? It's certainly not specific to the continental championships.
As we know, didn't England have to withdraw from the Sudirman Cup for lack of funds ? If the Sudirman Cup offers sufficient prize money, not just ranking points, prestige, opportunities to gain experience, etc, it might be possible to cover a good part,if not all, of the costs involved. Right, ranking points and prize money are the two vital ingredients for a tournament's success then comes the rest, prestige, personal glory inner satisfaction,experience gained.
I repeat,to quote Huangkwokhau, about 80% of the world's top 30 players/pairs come from Asia alone, that is more than sufficient reason to give the BAC the recognition (including BWF sanction), prestige, prize money and ranking points it verily deserves.
If I may say this, geography plays an important part in world politics,international relations,hence geopolitics (which also includes economics and demography) and that's the fate of nations,determining and influencing the foreign policy of states. Sorry,I digress too much.
Precisely. Minimal impact.
This is perfect.
Now if the rules said, if a continental championships gives points according to ranking of entrants, this is a much fairer expression. It allows every continent to have a chance of upgrading their tournament based on the players.
As the rules are written at present, there is no option to be upgraded. So, it is discriminatory based on geographical location.
Let's say in the future, 50% of the top players came from Oceania. What happens then?
How about 30% from Asia, 20% Europe, 20% PanAmerica, 20% Africa, 10% Oceania?
Asia is the largest continent by far and account for nearly 60% of the world's population, 4.478 billion of 7.515 billion, and there are still many countries which are underdeveloped or backward. As such, from a badminton point of view, holding a BAC is consonant with BWF's goal of promoting the sport worldwide.
It's good to have clear rules written down by BWF for the continental championships, even without it at present, the federation concerned can appeal to BWF for any justifiable requests , for example, as to ranking points awarded, inclusion to major championships qualification; I'm sure they will lend a listening year.
As for ranking points awarded for the various continental championships,I believe BWF has set the rules according to their criteria, if a continent's make-up of top players changes significantly, I'm sure it'll be taken into account appropriately. Yes,it's good to have clear clears written down but, even so , sometimes it's necessary to amend the rules to suit changed or unforeseen circumstances in order to better serve the needs.
Continental championships by its nature is geographically-based unlike the WC or Olympics, we have to take it in the context of the world situation with respect to its own composition and make the most of it to the best of our ability. If we have to wait until everything is perfect in terms of fairness, justice and equality, and agreeable to all parties before we do anything, then the opportunity costs may be too high a price to pay for the time being. Besides,as pointed out, any negative impact is minimal vis-a-vis the big picture. Nothing is cast in stone, we can learn as we go along and make changes as required, that's how we progress together.
The tournament upgrading path is certainly there. That's how BAC got to SS status. It was also a GPG a few years back.
The logistics can be tricky as one continent may be very strong in some disciplines but not as strong in others. But overall, the case for upgrading BAC to SS is quite compelling.
So, what is the upgrading criteria? 80% of world's top 25 in the region?
Why not just write down the upgrade path? Then all the continental championship organisers will know what they have to do to upgrade (or downgrade).
Thank you for thinking so highly of us. RedShuttle and I will discuss the matter and set the criteria for BWF to follow. We'll let you know later. Cheers. (Just kidding).
Life is very complicated, we're often forced to make compromises and there has to be some give and take, or it'll be impossible to carry on living. You win some and lose some. If every action has to be made on a unanimous decision, then nothing gets done or we're stuck.
Even something as important as the US Presidential Election in 2000 between Al Gore and George W. Bush,was decided by the US Supreme Court who voted 5-4 to stay the Florida recount. It was controversial and until today many believed Al Gore was robbed of his presidency. Sorry I digressed, just to make a point. I guess that's why we have consensus decision-making as an alternative to commonly practiced group decision-making process.
Life is very complicated.Don't try to find answers..Because when you find answers life changes the questions!
- Tina Dima
(The problem is I am never satisfied until I found the answers. If you really can't accept the decision no matter what and think it goes against your principles, fight it out or quit and strike out on your own, but avoid hurting others. - Justin)
Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple - Dr. Seuss
It's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong - Richard Feynman
If the upgrading takes place "often", say, once every three years, I am sure detail rules will be written down. In BAC's case, it is clear that any reasonable standard would be far exceeded and the long time unfairness needed to be corrected by upgrading BAC.
As it stands right now, using BEC being GPG as the baseline, BAC is still "under-pointed". Upgrading BAC to SSP is reasonable but a politically a tough sell. Oceania and Pan American championships are "over-pointed", but those extra points do not affect the big picture too much and people don't care.
Easy! Simply update the rules by that time to reflect the NEW REALITIES.
The current reality just can't afford to cover the many future IF situation, in particular those IF scenarios with very small or small likelihood to realize themselves. Just update the rules as it goes by as relevant and necessary.