[IBF]About Super Series
- Thread starter cxytdn
- Start date
Tennis is so successful in running 2-3 parallel Opens at the same time. Only during the Masters Series and Grand Slams that all the players will play in. Otherwise, players will select the Opens that will increase their chances of winning it.
The same model can be applied to badminton, therefore the need of GP Golds and GP events (in fact, as many as u can think of). Super Series might need to be limited to at most 10 (in fact, one more than tennis) to avoid a burnout schedule.
The running of parrallel GPs in close locations will also benefit players so that they can choose which events to participate in in order to prevent the risk of going out early, esp those junior and European players.
Example:
January:
In preparation for the Malaysia and Korea Super Series to be held let's say in Week 3 and 4, players can choose to compete in:
Week 1 -- Vietnam or Brunei GP
Week 2 -- Japan (Osaka) or China (Chengdu) GP
The same model can be applied to badminton, therefore the need of GP Golds and GP events (in fact, as many as u can think of). Super Series might need to be limited to at most 10 (in fact, one more than tennis) to avoid a burnout schedule.
The running of parrallel GPs in close locations will also benefit players so that they can choose which events to participate in in order to prevent the risk of going out early, esp those junior and European players.
Example:
January:
In preparation for the Malaysia and Korea Super Series to be held let's say in Week 3 and 4, players can choose to compete in:
Week 1 -- Vietnam or Brunei GP
Week 2 -- Japan (Osaka) or China (Chengdu) GP
chris-ccc
Regular Member
Let us tackle some questions/problems facing Badminton at the present moment
Before we get to 2020... Let us tackle some questions/problems facing Badminton at the present moment, as discussed in this thread located at:
Badminton Prestige
***
Before we get to 2020... Let us tackle some questions/problems facing Badminton at the present moment, as discussed in this thread located at:
Badminton Prestige
***
10 Superseries?!?
If we downsize the Superseries to only 10, then... I will pick... mmm...
China
Indonesia
Korea
Malaysia
India
Japan
Russia
All England
Denmark
USA
Sorry got to drop somebody... I choose to keep the traditional badminton powerhouse countries...
I cannot imagine a badminton world without China-Indonesia-Korea-Malaysia-Denmark and an All England... 
I can forgo Australia and South Africa... GP Golds are good enough for them...
And yes, GP and GP Golds can be run at a parallel... Australia GP Gold and France GP Gold can run at the same time...
If we downsize the Superseries to only 10, then... I will pick... mmm...
China
Indonesia
Korea
Malaysia
India
Japan
Russia
All England
Denmark
USA
Sorry got to drop somebody... I choose to keep the traditional badminton powerhouse countries...
I cannot imagine a badminton world without China-Indonesia-Korea-Malaysia-Denmark and an All England... I can forgo Australia and South Africa... GP Golds are good enough for them...And yes, GP and GP Golds can be run at a parallel...
Australia GP Gold and France GP Gold can run at the same time...Agreed, as in my previous post, I will stick to having 3 Grand Slams (promoting All England, Japan and USA).
As for Super Series, need to have at least the following:
China
Indonesia
Malaysia
Korea
Denmark
-- 5 traditional power houses of badminton.
France
Swiss
Singapore/Hong Kong
India
Russia
-- 2 new forces to be reckoned with
ricksakti
Regular Member
Why we are expecting those well developed country to get very interested in badminton? What is the point just to get money and money? Those countries has dominated in other many major sports. How about us in the south east asia? Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, etc? Any other sport than badminton? None. So how to make it prestige, it is these countries responsible, nobody else. To make the tourney more money prize, ask these country to sacrifice more money , ask those who corrupt the gov money to give some of it. What is 500,000 US, compare to the gold in olympics the only countries like us can get. Whats up with US, indeed this country to have everything, but i dont think it is the best thing to pampers this country to like badminton, then take over it and in order to make badminton more prastige.
As conclusion, its not other country responsibilty but it is ours.
As conclusion, its not other country responsibilty but it is ours.
In short, without the richer countries paying attention, we won't get media time and coverage, no sponsorship, no money, no prosperity, not a good future... Money is not the end goal! But it is crucial for a better tomorrow for badminton!
Whose responsibility? Overall in this planet, it is BWF's main responsibility... At the local or county level, then we can play some role...
I do take some responsibility of badminton development within my capability. I encourage everyone who loves badminton to do so too... For the Men singles tournament
/Twobeer
P.S. I think we need separate tournaments and to get rid of total-price money pool for all events (MS,MD,XD,WS,WD)... D.S.
jurong_twister
Regular Member
It wont happen, if BWF are still run by bunch of jokers.
Loh
Regular Member
I think those "Inner Circle" countries, ie the so-called badminton powerhouses as espoused by Krisna should themselves have a good badminton infrastructure to provide badminton fans, both local and worldwide with superb entertainment, free from encumbrances.
Big countries with big populations may not necessarily be the obvious choice, otherwise the US, Canada, Russia, India and some others should now be in the SS list, not Singapore, not Hong Kong.
The development of the badminton game in any particular country and how it has been improved and upgraded over the years is an important factor. The active participation rate as well as those, including the government and sponsors, who support the game on the sidelines are crucial. We have witnessed so many incidents of mismanagement and disagreements in both the international and national bodies that only retard the growth.
How is it that some big countries are not involved in this game, which has become an Olympic sport? Why are small countries like Singapore and Hong Kong included in the SS? This should evoke some interesting insights.
In our globalized world, relevant information must be readily availabe and can be speedily disseminated to the world. We have found that even now information on badminton tournaments and results may be lacking because those in charge are not providing the service to get more people interested.
The world should be our indoor stadium and in that sense the size of a country in terms of geography and population do not matter that much. A good infrastructure with an efficient, transparent and non-corruptible management, TV and internet networks that can link and interact with the remotest part of the globe can generate and develop interest.
So to say that Russia should be included in the SS because of its size and position in the UN does not hold much water. But if Russia has developed a keen interest in the game and has a long term programme to produce champions, that would be a different matter. Right now it would appear that Russia is still in its adolescent years in badminton terms.
Conversely, if Indonesia, Malaysia or Denmark should slacken in their badminton development programme and thier players no longer occupy the top positions, they may have to give up their seats.
Therefore, being on the SS list is not a matter of right. It is a privilege that must be earned.
Big countries with big populations may not necessarily be the obvious choice, otherwise the US, Canada, Russia, India and some others should now be in the SS list, not Singapore, not Hong Kong.
The development of the badminton game in any particular country and how it has been improved and upgraded over the years is an important factor. The active participation rate as well as those, including the government and sponsors, who support the game on the sidelines are crucial. We have witnessed so many incidents of mismanagement and disagreements in both the international and national bodies that only retard the growth.
How is it that some big countries are not involved in this game, which has become an Olympic sport? Why are small countries like Singapore and Hong Kong included in the SS? This should evoke some interesting insights.
In our globalized world, relevant information must be readily availabe and can be speedily disseminated to the world. We have found that even now information on badminton tournaments and results may be lacking because those in charge are not providing the service to get more people interested.
The world should be our indoor stadium and in that sense the size of a country in terms of geography and population do not matter that much. A good infrastructure with an efficient, transparent and non-corruptible management, TV and internet networks that can link and interact with the remotest part of the globe can generate and develop interest.
So to say that Russia should be included in the SS because of its size and position in the UN does not hold much water. But if Russia has developed a keen interest in the game and has a long term programme to produce champions, that would be a different matter. Right now it would appear that Russia is still in its adolescent years in badminton terms.
Conversely, if Indonesia, Malaysia or Denmark should slacken in their badminton development programme and thier players no longer occupy the top positions, they may have to give up their seats.
Therefore, being on the SS list is not a matter of right. It is a privilege that must be earned.
Last edited:
huangkwokhau
Regular Member
Also BWF is trying to get more umpires for SS as well.....pls read them it is quite interesting that they keep mentioning that it is hard to get neutral umpires for recent SS as reported in their website ( under BWF targetting Africa /ocenia umpires)