It makes me wonder when some people here claim that they have seen Rudy play during his prime on video as there were no VCRs back then. I am not even sure they broadcast the matches live in the late 60s and early 70s. Do these people have what I haven't got? I am prepared to pay good money for Rudy's early career videos. Or are these people lying to win an argument? I agree, Zhao Jian Hua is an exceptionally gifted player who is amongst the greats of badminton ever. Would he have been the greatest if he didn't missed so many years of play during his prime? That is a matter of pure speculation.
Wow I am being judged by someone who doesn't even have a law qualification. Are you fit to judge me as a lawyer? What is your background? Do you know the law and what they teach at law school? Do you know what lawyers do and how they do it? I know Tan Xin Hu and Ho Chia Chang as they are Indonesian Chinese and are famous in Indonesia. I didn't know the nick name called "the Thing". I have some Zhao Jian Hua's videos so off course I know who he is as I have seen him play. Stop pretending to being a lawyer by mimicking trial attorneys saying "I put it to you" repeatedly. You are only making a fool out of yourself and you are doing a great job at that with every comments you posted. They sell lawyers licence to practice in Sibuga? Sibuga? Where on earth is Sibuga?
You obviously haven't followed this debate from the start. I have listed my criterias to measure the greatest badminton player so far in my previous posts and even used other people's criterias in coming to the conclusion that Rudy Hartono is the greatest. Basically my criterias are: 1. Your career record including records in history which may include the Guiness Book of Records and being inducted to the Hall of Fame. 2. Longevity of career. 3. Success at an early age. 4. Dominance of the game during that era. 5. Contribution and impact to the game. 6. Success in overcoming obstacles and challenges(eg lack of resources that are available to the player, lack of high quality coaches, lack of international standard sparring partners, lack of technology like videos to learn from, lack of international quality local players to learn from, primitive equipments, etc). 7. Personal champion qualities (eg judgement-shot selection, courage-taking risk in the game, self-discipline, determination, sportmanship, humility, wisdom, ability to learn without top calibre assistance, etc). There might be more that I deliberately mentioned or accidentally mentioned but the above are what I can remember and I have applied the facts to the criterias above. The conclusion is that Rudy Hartono is the greatest so far and that Taufik is nowhere near being the greatest implying that Rudy is much greater than Taufik. This has nothing to do with style of play or who would beat who if the players meet in a match which would be unfair to the older players since the latest players have learnt from the past players and thus are technically more developed. Do you disagree with my conclusion using my own criterias? Or do you have a different conclusion with a different set of criterias? Are you arguing that your conclusion or set of criterias are more sound?
I see you are finally accepting the fun look into this... which you previously described as 'silly/childish' i believe..... Go on do entertain yourself. and i suppose since it MUST BE TRAVEL BACK TO THE PAST and nothing other, i suppose you are not only the defence lawyer & prosecutor, but the judge, jury & the policy maker of the rules of the discussion. The Borneon BaddyNut
Dear Mr very offensive & deffensive, do you feel that your urge to jump on everything people say not only clouds your mind, and constantly impair you from understanding what people are really trying to say???? Do you feel you constantly get into conflicts perhaps verbally with people during discussions? and you wonder why.......... If you re-read checkthemc's post, valuation of the greatest player have many separate criterias.......... just like yours. the only difference is if you judge greatness according to a singular factor the assesment is a more objective comparison rather a combined list of criteria. This is because the failure to : 1) quantify each attribute and subsiquently the quantity of the total combined criteria is un-attainable. 2) give a proper weightage to each criteria. so to make this even clearer for the reader's understanding of checkthemc's post, feel free to read the following example : IBF ranking? (if not mistaken the greates would be Peter gade) Points? Championships, subdivided into major and smaller ones? (according to # of AE titles it is Rudy Hartono) Obstacles outside of badminton (I.e health, death of family member, ect) (many say it is Zhou Jian Hua) talent? style of playing? (i still say ZJH imho) I hope the fog has lifted. The Borneon BaddyNut
I took a look at the tiny photo you referred to when you were training with Mia's father and I thought I've addressed you wrongly. Why? Because I saw someone much taller than the then 9-year old Mia with a fantastic blob of hair. That must be you at 19 years of age. Now as a lawyer and having to appear in court quite often probably, that wonderful crown of yours must have be trimmed down quite a bit, I presume.
I look quite different now. I have put on a lot of weight since (15kg) and have a crew cut style hair and losing quite a lot of hair but not quite bold yet.
Your lengthy arguments will not change the fact that Rudi is not the greatest. He only won 8 AE in the UNCOMPETITIVE ERA, VERY few players, NOT GLOBAL You are so attached with the PAST. As your answer keeps back and forth without valid and reliable arguments, I consider that your arguments are VERY Subjective. Accusing me of lying for not having seen Rudi play serves a CRYSTAL CLEAR PROOF that your arguments so far have been based on your VERY SUBJECTIVE grounds. Your argument saying that AE is still a messure of success is also funny. We have WC and Olympic. Winning these two tournaments are all that most of world players want. Again, the VALID AND RELIABLE MEASURE OF SUCCESS IN BADMINTON is WINNING WC and OLYMPICS AT THE SAME TIME.......AE is the same as other tournaments....
My job as in defending my case is to counter and nuetralise any arguments that are in opposition to my case. Unlike my opponents I counter every argument that I face while maintaining my integrity by conceeding points that I feel are valid. Conceeding in debate adds weight to you strong points as conceeding means you are honest and objective in your arguments. A singular criteria is I am afraid to multiple criterias as a singular criteria closes one's mind to lateral thinking and having a broad perspective to the analysis. What makes that particular singular criteria superior to all the other relevant criterias in that the others must be ignored? This is unobjective bias which leads to subjective thinking and a defect in the analysis. I have not know an in depth analysis in academic thinking that simply relies on a single criteria to come up with an informed, reliable and objective conclusion. This is not scientific. As in law it is possible to give weight to each criteria (judges and jury do this all the time). An exact quantification is not possible unless it is pure science (eg mathematics, chemistry, physics etc) but you can get an idea of the feel of the truth by applying the facts to the criterias (which is like the law). This process of applying the facts to the law is a legal process and is used by lawyers in legal reasoning. So this all possible as this is legal science not pure science. The ranking and points system were not used in Rudy's time but I have no doubt Rudy would be the unchallenged number 1 for a long period of time during his era with a mass number of points. So this criteria is again in favour of Rudy. The number of championships titles must be seen in percentage terms since the numbers of tournaments today far outnumber the number of tournaments during Rudy's era. How many tournaments did Rudy enter and how many did he win. What are the percentage tournament win record of the player? What is the players win-loss record during his career? What is the percentage of the win-loss record? I am sure Taufik's record in this area is not so impressive in this area. I suspect that Zhao Jian Hua might have an impressive percentage record since he was absent for a few years in the badminton scene. However in the other departments of the criteria Zhao Jian Hua cannot match Rudy (eg number of titles, historical record, dominance, longevity, contribution/impact in badminton, conduct of court, champion qualities, obstacles and challenges faced -such as the availability of high standard training partners, international calibre coaches, equipments, knowledge to learn from past players whether from direct observation from local players, live TV broadcasts and videos). In terms of talent I say Zhao Jian Hua equals Rudy but in different departments. Rudy is a genius thinker with impeccable shot selection. Zhao Jian Hua is a genius craftsman on court with spectacular deceptive strokes. But sporting history is on the side of the genius thinker as your mind will never let you down but your shots could on a bad day as proven by Zhao Jian Hua being erratic. Great thinkers in sports like Muhammad Ali has proven to be superior to spectacular strong and powerful sportsman like George Foreman. Even the spectacular and powerful Mike Tyson was knocked out by a thinking boxer. Don't underestimate the power of a great mind. In regard to style of play I agree with you Zhao Jian Hua is more entertaining than Rudy but I have pointed out that this is not a reliable criteria to measure greatness as style of play is entirely a matter of personal preference and taste of the observer and is thus subjective. So now you have shifted your position from Taufik Hidayat to Zhao Jian Hua as the greatest player to date? I agree that Zhao Jian Hua is a greater player than Taufik Hidayat judging from Taufik's achievements so far (this may change as Taufik has a lot of years in front of him) but I cannot agree that Zhao Jian Hua is a greater player than Rudy Hartono as proven from my analysis based on the criterias I listed. Rudy is the greatest!
As stated i have always been a great fan of ZJH.... so i will always be partial towards him. Taufik based on the 'kick ass criteria' would be the greatest..... but the again i have already posted that, and we have already discussed it as well. Weren't you reading??? The Borneon BaddyNut. PS. Thank you for sharing your insight on your lawyer(ing ) experience. Very nice read. PPS. I choose to end this discussion and feel that we have grown respect for each other and each other views. That is what i think. I'm not sure what you still feel.
You sound like a broken record repeating your points which I have already dealt with without adding anything new to counter my points. I am not attached in the past but if someone is the greatest and he is from the past than you must give that player credit and accept the truth. I am attached to the truth. The competition during Rudy's era was global minus China. The competition that the Chinese players face wasn't global. Didn't you read the posts of intelligent and open minded people who look at the arguments presented in this thread with an open and curious mind? They say that my arguments have substance and merit while Taufik's supporters are just saying "blah blah blah". You also seem to unable to grasp the meaning of subjective and objective in that you say that my arguments are subjective. Do you know what subjective means? How about objective? You also twist my words deviously by saying that I accused you of lying. I have never accused you of lying. My comments which were not even directed towards you in my post says that I was puzzled as to how could Taufik's supporters (I don't single you out) have seen Rudy play in his prime as there were no videos or live TV broadcast in the late 60s or early 70s. You might have seen Rudy play like me in the late 70s and early 80s but this is not the era of Rudy's prime. You are one year younger than me judging from your profile so how could you have more knowledge of Rudy than me. Did you watch Rudy play as a 2 year old in London at AE? You have probably witness the greatness of Rudy in decline in the late 70s and early 80s and Rudy still managed to subdue younger, faster and more powerful players like Liem Swie King for example at the 1980 WC in straight sets under 10. Imagine how much greater Rudy was in his prime in his younger years which you didn't witness. Just use your commonsense and try to be objective. If there is anyone here who is being subjective they are Taufik's supporters. Your claim that I accused you of lying shows sheer desperation to attack me on a personal level when you have no real substance in your arguments. Winning than I Olympic may show that you are good. Winning 2, very good. 3, brilliant. This is because the Olympics are held every 4 years only and winning 3 Olympics mean that you are consistent for 12 years and show that you may be dominant during those 12 years. Winning the WC once may mean you are good. Twice, very good. Three times great. 4 times wonderful. 5 times brilliant. This is because the WC is held every 2 years and show how dominant you are during these 10 years by winning 5 times. However I can't say winning the WC and Olympics once in the space of 2 years is brilliant as you only show that you are dominant for 2 years. Rudy was dominant for more than 10 years winning his first AE title at 17 and winning the WC at 31. Name me one player who did this or won any tournament 8 times. One more point which I need to correct though you didn't bring up this point is that modern badminton started with the emergence of Rudy Hartono. Players during Rudy's era like Liem Swie King, Svend Pri, Fleming Delf etc are considered modern badminton players. Rudy is a modern badminton player as opposed to what is called the traditional badminton players before the youn Rudy appeared and changed badminton. Rudy had no problems playing against Liem Swie King who pioneered the "speed and power" game which proves that Rudy belonged in the modern era.
You are missing the point my proposal which you accepted was that Taufik travel back in time to play Rudy in his prime with primitive equipment not the other way around. Furthermore, even if Rudy travel forward in time using modern equipment this is more likely to improve Rudy's game with improvements in equipment technology unlike Taufik who will lose his abilities if he use primitive equipments. A good lawyer knows the strengths and merits of the case and thus knows the chances of him getting a favourable judgement or verdict. I am convinced that my case is a total winner here based on my judgement.
LOL Open to your own baseless assumptions but not to others... that is how i view your post. And many of the before. Salvaged only by some factual information blended together.... can you differentiate between them in your own post? I can tell if which of my opinions are assumptions are partial or not solid in facts............. or even which of my opinions are partial.... and separate it from what is solidly real. sadly i don't think you can do the same for your own post. That must be a closing you use often The Borneon BaddyNut.
You make some accusations but fail to give proof or examples of your accusation. I cannot defend myself unless you highlight where and what the exact flaws of my case is. A person has the right to answer and rebut the accusations made against him but how can a person do this if the nature of the accusations are unsubstantiated, vague and general. Where are the specifics in your accusation so that I can answer to them. All I can say in light of your vague accusations not backed up by examples is that I outrightly reject your accusations as completely baseless without any evidence whatsover. The problem with Taufik's supporters not only do they twist facts to suit their own dubious arguments they fail to provide proof for their claims and cannot back up their arguments with concrete facts or historical facts. They also fail to counter compelling points and leave these points unanswered which make these points more readily accepted due to the absent of opposition. Taufik's supporters also fail to provide answers to my challenges (eg to provide proof that Taufik is a genius wonder kid because he won a major international tournament at an early age). The complete silence I take it is an indication of conceeding defeat and not being able to meet the challenge. However the unwillingness to openly conceed as well as resorting to presonal attacks dent the case of Taufik's supporters as this proves that they are sore losers.
Are you playing dumb? Kindly note baseless assumptions as i have highlighted below. An example among many. the Psychotic do not realize they are suffering from psychosis..... what are you suffering from? The Borneon BaddyNut
Why would I play dumb? The burden of proof is on the person making the allegations and so far you have not proven any of the allegations you have made. What baseless assumptions did I make? You can allege things without proving those allegations. That is not how things work. The assumption that I made in your example is a fun argument not the real argument that I am making which is based on my criterias I listed. The example you highlighted the assumption is based on commonsense. Haven't you got any? This is compatible with the ordinary day to day experience of every human being in that you give better equipment your standard will increase and you give inferior equipment the standard will decrease. That is the general rule and unless you can prove otherwise or there is an exception in this case the general rule applies. I must say you lack logic and commonsense. Are you saying the people who are on my side as proven by their posts here, who happened to be intelligent, courteous and openminded people, are stupid? Again implying that I am suffering from psychosis reflect the nature of Taufik's fans who resort to personal attacks when they have nothing of substance to address the arguments. Is this a case where someone on this thread says "what Taufik fans say is blah blah blah". Either the people who support me are stupid or Taufik's supporters are stupid. Both sides are on opposite extremes.
Dear Sabathiel, another one of your attempt to avoid the point made in my previous post to you. Or do you need me to further point out AGAIN the exact point in the post to assist your special needs? Ah you again put words in my mouth......... this is at least the second one i have highlighted. trust me there are more! Again a sad failure at understanding. u are seriously suffering from something if you are not playing dumb. but defo not psychotic.... as you would escape jail sentence with a lenient mental institute holding. A lame attempt to make an mountain out an ant hill at my expense my dear sabathiel The Borneon BaddyNut
What point am I avoiding care to enlighten me? It is you who cannot get my points as I have pointed out that my above assumption in the hypothetical time warp scenario which is not my main argument ( this one was for fun because you started the "kick butt" theory) is based on commonsense. I hate to break it to you but commonsense means an assumption made by people on the basis of a common understanding or common experience in life. This doesn't need proof so my commonsense assumption is not baseless as proof is redudant in this case. Or maybe you don't share the commonsense with the rest of mankind. Again you are going on a personal insult orgy. All I hear is "blah blah blah". Haven't you got anything intelligent to say to address the real issues?
