Why Taufik Will Not Participate In Ae

There is only one Guinness Book of Records if you check the internet. It simply says Rudy Hartono holds the most title at the AE Championships which was the unofficial World Championships at the time, 7 of these titles were held consecutively. This book doesn't deal with badminton or sports only it deals with all sorts of records. If the record is the best in the world then it would be in the book.

I also like to mention that Rudy Hartono was inducted to the Badminton Hall of Fame in 1997 unlike Hou Chia Chang and Tan Xin Hu who were inducted in 2002. It took the badminton establishment awhile to accept these two Chinese players as the greats of badminton. Rudy was instantly recognised as the great of badminton.

Anyone who say that it is impossible to dominate badminton by winning multiple titles at the same tournament after the inclusion of China into the IBF ignores the fact that players like Morten Frost Hansen won 4 AE titles and was runner up (if I am correct) 4 times also t AE. Ardy Wiranata also holds the record for the most Indonesian Open title being 6 times (5 in a row). Ardy won his first Indonesian Open at an youn age and also won AE and became runner up at the 1989 WC losing to Yang Yang in three sets at an early age. Definetely younger than Taufik. This makes Ardy a genius wonder kid like Rudy. I remember training in the same building as Ardy at the same time in Indonesia and people already hailed him as a genius wonder kid. Instead of playing in the under 15s at the time Ardy was playing and successful in the under 18s.

 

And In response:

So Sabathiel what exactly are you saying about the book in possesion of Taneepak?
- Does not hold merit?
- Not a valid version of a Guiness Book of Records?

Do specify as I do try not to guess what people mean before i counter their argument / statement / information that is presented by them.


The Borneon BaddyNut

 

Dear Sabathiel,

Your statement above ignored the below common sense & facts.

you would be able to find that less multiple titles & consecutive titles (in terms of frequency and quantity) are occuring (this is a fact) as we progress further and further thru time. This can be explained by the following :-

1) Higher level training required to achieve high levels of today's play.
This is a fact. higher level of play and the training required to reach such levels cut's short the pro rata years of players competetive lifespan. because of this players are unable to stretch their winning streak to such a time span. (this is also a fact)

2) higher level of play accross the playing field.
This is a fact. Presented by me earlier in this thread as well. one will find it so much more difficult to dominate for a long span. Tournaments are even more taxing & challeging to win because of this. (a fact not disputed till now in this thread).

3) players are not as great as those from before.
This is NOT a fact. this is an assumption. to say players of today are not able to achieve such feats show that they are not so great is non-sensical.


The Borneon BaddyNut

 

I don't know and haven't read the book quoted by Taneepak so I can judge its merit. All I can say the Guinness Book of Record that I know is much more popular and highly regarded than the one quoted by Taneepak. People consult and rely on the Book that I mentioned but not Taneepak's book. If the other badminton greats are in the calibre of Rudy than shouldn't they be in the MAIN Guinness Book of Records?

I thought you said you are finish with thisn debate? It's hard not to argue isn't it?

 

I think you are using the word commonsense and facts interchangeably as I cannot find any commonsense in your above post and only facts(selective ones).

Less multiple titles or consecutive titles doesn't automatically mean that the players of today's era are greater than previous eras. It can also mean that there are no particular player today who are as dominant as players like Rudy back in the past. You have a problem with the level of competition in Rudy's era but the fact that Rudy is very dominant in that era indicates that Divine Providence is on the side of Rudy. This is simply Rudy's luck and destiny in assuming the title of the greatest by dominance, longevity, early success and major title numbers (10, 8 AE, 1 WC and 1 World Invitational plus 2 AE Runner Ups).

As I said it before if the level of competition was so low during Rudy's era how come noone else remotely comes close to doing what Rudy did in that era? This means that Rudy was highly competitive beyond any other player during that era. If Rudy was not competitively special above the rest of that era's players than Rudy would appear to be just like everybody else and not able to dominate in that era. This is what distinquishes the greats in that they appear and prove ot be special in dominating during their era as the other players were not in the same calibre as the maestro of the game. Today's players face tougher competition but this fact is fairly balanced by the fact that today's players are of a higher level of play by learning from the improvements done by players in the past due to better training facilities, better coaches, better prizemoney, better equipments, better training partners, better health experts etc. So in the end they are about even if you compare past players and today's players in terms of how hard it is to dominate and create records.

I never said today's players are not as great as past time players (with the exception of Rudy Hartono). This is in reference to your third point.

In reference to your first point. There are players in their older years (late 20s and 30s) who still excell in the game. Poul Hoyer Larsen won his Olympic title at 30 and AE titles at 29 and 30. Zhao Jian Hua was also relatively old when he won his AE title in 1990 and his World title in 1991. Fung Permadi is another player that became better as he got older. So the competitive life span of the player in the modern era doesn't automatically become cut short by the high level training and high level of today's play. This depends on the particular player. Certainly Rudy's training regime was very intensive and very high level even by today's standards. The fact that Rudy can play and can be successful in his 30s when the game became faster and more powerful is a testament to Rudy's brilliance which must be backed up by talent, skill and fitness. I am just curious from what year do you think badminton became much more competitive based on your high training level and high level of play? From Liem Swie King's era? Yang Yang? Heryanto Arbi? Taufik Hidayat?

With your second point you ignore the fact that I presented regarding the success of Ardy Wiranata of winning 6 Indonesian Open titles, 5 of which were done consecutively. Ardy also was runner up at the 1989 WC losing to Yang Yang in three sets and winning silver in the 1992 Olympics losing to Alan Budi Kusuma. This proves that it is possible to be dominant past Rudy's era. Or do you claim Ardy wasn't playing in a competitive era? AE happened to be a more prestigious title than Indonesian Open but I ask the question which player can match Rudy's record by winning multiple or consecutive titles in any tournament. The answer is Ardy though not in the same calibre as Rudy comes close to doing so. Taufik also has so far won 5 Indonesian Open titles. Arguing that the high level of training and high level of play are the reason why a player couldn't dominate in tournaments by winning multiple or consecutive titles is a poor excuse on behalf of the player to prove his greatness.

 

i've been enjoying this threat so much. it fed my appetite for intelligent, childish, emotional debate (each has its own attraction if you know where to look).
i hope to see more of these in the future. i must give credit to all the people giving so much effort to convnce each other in different ways. but i must say i already made up my mind of who the greates player is from past to present year but i will not present it to this threat since it will attract baddys to try to convert my belief. of course i do belief that there is only on greatest badminton player as there is only one thruth without other version, in this case i follow my heart and mind.

 

that's like being a peeking tom, all looky and no action

 

A person's action & thoughts can often be best described by their own words.

The above quote is what best describes & explains the ENIGMA that is redkingjoe.

To understand you however, this commentary from your own kindself drives the nail into the head. It simply shows you are the personification of the word 'conviction'. It's is your duty, your responsibility, your work, it is your LIFE to prove that you representing the right.

i must say this is a very honoroble proffesion and not an easy path to follow. Just bear in mind we you participate in Badminton Central Discussion Forums, that you are in a FORUM not a Court of Law.

You are a solved case to me now and finally i am satisfied and content, no longer curious or excited or even puzzled....

Do enjoy your stay here. We look forward to your contributions in other threads & topics in the near future.

finally i can close this chapter in my life and leave this in 2005. Now i look forward to 2006 and the further challenges that may follow. A happy 2006 New year to everyone. Peace to you and your loved ones.


The Borneon BaddyNut.

 

Oh man.. Why Taufik Will not Play in AE has become a long long debate. When the answer is only short. When is this going to end guys?

 

Maybe he has been reading this forum and likes what he sees
So he purposely avoid AE to ignite flames in this forum

 

everybody is famous for 15 mins

on MS, olympic gold status is no indication of greatness.
look at all the past ones

 

furthermore, it is extremely difficult for tangHX, rudy H and zhaoJH to win a olympic gold

.
.
.

coz in the 60's, 70' and 80's there is no olympic back then LOL

 

Look at Tennis the winners of the four prestigious grand slam events are still considered the greats of tennis especilially the oldest tournament called Wimbledon. The Olympics is considered irrelevant to measure greatness because there can only be limited number of players from each country to play at the Olympics so the Olympics is not very competitive (including badminton). The ATP Masters in tennis at the end of the year has more prizemoney than the 4 grandslam events including Wimbledon and nobody cares about the ATP Masters tournament which is probably a 20 star event. Nobody cares about stars or how much is involved. They care about prestige and history of the game. Th truth is really simple if you have the common sense and pay attention to the arguments.

Where is my answer to my question from Taufik's supporters on the proof that Taufik is a genius wonder boy in badminton like Rudy who won AE at 17?

I think Indra is Taufik's family that is why he comes up with biased non-objective and ridiculous arguments as well as ridiculous facts and lies.

 

The truth is as you say it is simple. The greatest is the one who dominates the game the longest from his early age to his latter years as proven by his title record. It requires lenghty explanation here because Taufik's supporters are closed minded and thick in the head ("bebel" alias "tolol"). LOL

 

This is not true. There was a total of 13 players who were the first to be inducted into the Badminton Hall of Fame in 1997. One of the 13 players was Rudy Hartono. Others included **** Surdiman (the Surdiman Cup competition is in his honour; also known as the father of Indonesian badminton), Eddy Choong, Finn Kobbero, and Earland Kops. Other greats were inducted later, not because they were less gifted, but politics got in the way for some (like for the "Thing" and Hou) who were indicted only after China was admitted.
Also the Guiness Book of Records and the Badminton Hall of Fame are not related, the former has no records on badminton at all, and the latter is IBF owned.

 

You are incorrect with the facts. China was admitted into the IBF in the early eighties. No politics were involved with inducting people into the Hall Of Fame which you correctly pointed out was IBF owned. The Hall of Fame started I believe in 1997 and China has already been long admitted into the IBF. Rudy was admitted with others into the Hall of Fame in 1997 but Hou Chia Chang and Tan Xin Hu were admitted in 2002. How can you say politics got in the way when China has been in the IBF since the early eighties? Please explain how you come to that conclusion.

 

According to the same source as the Badminton Hall of Fame, Rudy Hartono was born in 1951. If true then he was 29 when he won the World Championship and only 31 when he played his last Thomas Cup tie against China as 3rd singles in which he lost to China. Also when Rudy was only 28 he played as 3rd singles for Indonesia in the 1979 Thomas Cup final. I believe Rudy's best years were before 1976.
Singapore's Sportsman of the Century, Wong Peng Soon, 4 times winner of the All England singles crown, was 37 when he won his last All England singles title.

 

Look here, my man, nothing is permanent except change. The sooner you get this into you the better for mankind. As Rudyard Kipling's writing says : I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); Their names are What & Why & When And How & Where & Who. Hope this rubs off a little on you.