LD would have beaten LCW 15-4, 15-1, if this year's OG used the OSS . ctjcad ... AlanY (go back to Post#414) worked out from the score sheet... that LD would have beaten LCW 15-4, 15-1, if this year's OG used the OSS. .
If that's the case, you don't need licensed professional to test a final product any more. You should simply drag 20 ppl from the street, and let them "show of hand" to determine whether a new product is well made and safe to be used. Why you need to consult a doctor when you are sick? Rather than ask joe doe from the street? If the doctor insist that you need a surgery, but 3 10 years old kids say you look fine, who you listen to? Do you visit a licensed shop when you car breaks down? Or, you simply do a vote among a junior high school class, who clearly does not know how the car should operate to begin with? Sure, pure blank sheet is clean. However, blank sheet of paper can never be sold and kept as a value of a well written book.
A bit off topic-Yep.. ..seen that post already; thanks for the reference... I wasn't referring to this yr's OG MS Final's result, specifically. Who knows, anything could happen on LD's way to the Final, if they were still using the OSS. And that applies to his other "major" tourneys victories, which used the NSS (e.g. AE, WC). In any rate, we'll never know and only facts that still stand are LD's WC & OG titles occur using the NSS. ??..Indonesian Open as a "major" tourney???....he won some??..okay, he won one in 2006 (using the NSS)...
yup, 99% of dot com companies vaporized because 99% of them are run by 20's year old bosses Too much hormones
The same could be said for MS-15-0; 15-0 vs 21-0; 21-0 = 30 rallies vs 42 rallies. Following what you said, 42 rallies are always longer than 30 rallies. The NSS has some pretty long matches too, in MS, WS, MD, WD, MX. It also has many very short matches. Why? Maybe the dynamics of the game have something to do with it.
New players and spectators are not going to be doctors. They are going to continue to play and to improve on their skills, hopefully to become world beaters one day, Get a group of players who are relatively new to badminton and ask them to play both scoring systems. Do the same with a group of spectators who are also newcomers or at least of a group who have not played too long under the OSS. Then do a poll and ask them to choose their preference. You can do this on select groups of players too. You will probably find some relationship between number of years on the OSS vs NSS and their choice. You will also notice a shift from OSS to NSS even among those pro-OSS over time, as shown in this poll. As I have said, people who have been brought up in one environment are less open to new ideas even if they are better. The only time they will change is when they see others change or for fear of being left out. This is human nature.
One of the key elements in an extremely competitive sport is suspense, which also requires great mental strength from the players. In the NSS nobody knows who is going to win the next point; all they know is that one of the two players will get a point at the end of the rally. In the OSS this is not the case. A few things/results are already known before the rally. The receiver cannot under any circumstances win a point. The server cannot under any circumstances lose a point but he may win a point. The mental stress and the mental toughness of the two systems are oceans apart.
I really did not realize that the mental stress and the mental toughness of the 2 scoring systems were oceans apart. Can you then provide the analysis of the following, since you have over 40 years of knowledge and experience and plus also rubbed shoulders with many of the badminton top players: - Analysis of the mental toughness and mental stress for the men singles gold medal match of this Olympic games; plus also highlight the suspense which this match produced; - Analysis of the mental toughness and mental stress for the men singles bronze medal match between Chen Jin and Lee Hyun Il, and also the extreme suspense in the game as well; - Analysis of the soft, no-suspense, no-thrill, non-interesting match between Yang Yang and Ardy Wiranata in 1989, World Cup MS finals; - Analysis of the non-tough, no-sweat, no-thrill, no-suspense world championship finals held in 1985, Calgary between Han Jian and Morten Frost; - Analysis of the WS finals of the 1985, World championships in Calgary, between Han Aiping and Wu Qinchau, specially in the non-emotional final points; You are an highest authority in the badminton field, I am here, humbly awaiting your knowledgeable analysis to enlighten me (if anybody interested , feel free to come) in this novel and refreshing idea of 21-point badminton, so I could abandon the old and useless format of 15-point badminton format that you played for 40 years and finally found the light. You can really save a lot of us, ignorant souls about the game of badminton, by guiding us through this moment of darkness!! Awaiting your enlightening analysis and speech! Yours truly!
You had your say. Now let us hear what others have to say on this mental thing. Perhaps we can try to get top players to comment on this mental thing. Also top coaches but opinions should be current, not during the "great fire" of the scoring system switch-over days.
I did not make that statement, unless it is not true and again trying to avoid your own affirmations... as usual, similar to your coincidental forgetting about your brilliant and authoritative postings of unattackable short serve in badminton.
I like both systems, but for different situations. The new system is good for league games and club nights because you can get on court more often during the session. The old system is good for playing somebody you are equally matched to so you can battle for longer and if they get ahead by chance you can battle it back. But i rarely have chance to play the old scoring anymore
Some may say that elite players close to the sport are the best qualified to evaluate a new scoring system. Others say that such people are too close to the sport to be objective. Sports governing bodies, mostly former top players themselves have a broader perspective. Spectators also have a vested interest in the game but players don't really listen to them. Only administrators do. Almost all the sports that have seen a switch-over from the old only-server-wins point, namely volleyball, squash and badminton, have had their share of strong resistance against the change to the rally point system. But the new scoring system has been a resounding success in all three sports. Now squash, energised by the new rally point system, thinks it will have a better chance of being admitted to the Olympics. This may be at the expense of another sport. In badminton, pressure points and unpredictability make the game more exciting. These of course make the game more suspense-oriented and mentally-oriented. As David Nicol says in squash you have to think ahead. Pressure points make the game more tension-packed and the earlier you reach such pressure points the better. The OSS used to take ages to reach the pressure points of double digit scores, and with perhaps hundreds of rallies and still registering a score of 7-7, a long way from the pressure points, had actually made the game boring in a way with no end in sight. Table tennis has purposely increased the pressure points of their game to 11 points from 21 but increasing the number of sets in a match. In badminton generally the rally point system is shorter than the OSS. This means increased pressure points, both at the full 21 score and the half way mark of 11 points. In total a 2-game NSS match will have 4 pressure points, 2 major and 2 minor. In contrast the OSS had only 2 pressure points and both are sometimes too long to sustain continuous tension and concentration.
Quite disappointed with your last post - still did not see your expert and in-depth analysis of the 2 scoring systems that make them oceans apart. Evading the justification (if any) of your authoritative statements, as usual?
I seldom sit on the fence when needed to make a decision. But for this question: is OSS or NSS better, I am split right in between. The reason is the same when the NSS was first introduced in televised tournament as it is now. Mind you, I played the game socially and watched many live and televised matches from the 70s till now. From a spectator point of view, I find NSS far more exciting too watch compare to the OSS. I said excitment in the sense of suspense and tempo of the match, the quality of match reply are still there when top players play each other and very much on par in either system. If I vote as a spectator, I will vote for NSS. But looking at it from a social player point of view, I prefer the OSS. Mainly because at social level, we made elementary mistakes, such as weak backhand return, slow footwork to retrive a shot, inaccurate line smash or backcourt clear, all these in NSS cost us points very fast, and a NSS game will finish before I am completely warm up. With OSS, I can afford a few mistakes and so can my opponents, there will almost always sufficient court time for us to enjoy a game thoroughly and get a good work out. Thus from a social plyer point of view, I will vote for OSS. So there you have it, I am firmly sitting on the fence and I am not ashame of it. Because I am still enjoying badminton as much as I always do, whether watching it or playing it. Perhaps that is the only important thing that matters, and which some contributors may have forgoten in the heat of the debate.
Believe it or not?: Badminton is evolving . Linus ... What you've said is true. At different clubs in Melbourne, Australia, I still play with the OSS and I still enjoy playing with it, since I have played with it for years. IMHO, I believe this thread has a purpose, that is... 'Badminton is evolving. Shall we, at Badminton Central, give the pros and cons of where/how Badminton is heading?'. Yes, players are not the only ones to have a say, as pointed out by taneepak. Others also have a say, namely; coaches, spectators, administrators, tournament organisers, television executives, sponsors, etc...... .
Obviously you do not want to understand, or perhaps you don't comprehend, what I have been saying all these times. How sad. Maybe, you should go on a fast of complete abstinence from OSS and go on a diet of NSS for 6 months. This is to detoxify your system and to eventually get you away from being too close to the OSS, because this is the only way you can be objective.
This is very enlightening and has more than a grain of truth in it. Recreational players may say the OSS will give them time to get used to the environment whereas the NSS is more unforgiving, meaning if you make one or two mistakes it is too late to recover. This is due to differences in pressure points of the 2 systems. More pressure points bring more mental pressure, hightened suspense, and excitment.
