The weatherman says thunderstorms will still prevail in my area. Seriously, it's gonna be a case where 'you can argue till the cows come home'. As much as everyone is entitled to their own frivilious & humourous opinion, history has proven that facts, figures, results & the truth prevail.
You don't know who the experts are? Professional badminton players, ex-pro badminton players, badminton journalists or commentators, BWF administrators, badminton historians etc. How do you think some players are inducted to the badminton hall of fame? The experts! I guess I disagree with you on a deep philosophical level. I don't believe anything or anyone is equal and this applies to opinions also. Don't get me wrong I believe in equality before the law and equal opportunity but not equality of results. If we know the facts we can measure the inequalities of anything. To me Nelson Mandela is a better person than Adolf Hitler in terms of morality because the facts speak for themselves. Lin Dan is a better badminton player than John Moody based on the facts and results. Bill Gates is richer than Richard Branson. Einstein is a better scientist than my university lecturer. All these opinions are objective because they have a legitimate basis rooted in facts and a common consensus amongst people. If one has an opinion that Hitler is a better person than Mandela and John Moody is a better badminton player than Lin Dan, what kind of opinion is that? On what basis does one form that opinion? Does the facts and results back that opinion? Are there any compelling arguments to support those opinions? Sure everyone is entitled to express their opinions but it doesn't follow that all opinions have equal value or else the result is anarchy. So feel free to express your opinion but at least back it up with facts/results, compelling arguments, good analysis and objectivity or else people are not going to take you seriously. Another factor to putting value on opinions is the status of a person and his/her influence. If I think you are the messiah what value can we place on my opinion. However if the Pope thinks you are the messiah that would be a different story. I am not equal to the Pope hence his opinion is better regarded than mine. True, there is a saying that "all men are created equal" but I am not sure if the people who expressed that saying were not simply being nice or being deluded. The truth is that some are more equal than others! Luck is important but the other factors outweigh luck. How lucky would I be if play Lin Dan? In the end winning the Olympics or WC once doesn't necessarily make you great because as you say luck could be a factor here. Is Alan Budi Kusuma, the winner of the 1992 Olympics, a great player? Is Peter Rasmussen, winner of 1997 WC a great player? What about Ji Xinpeng, winner of 2000 Olympics? To be great one needs to win tournaments consistently and not simply win 1 major tournament no matter how prestigious the tournament. The totality of the player's career must be considered not just one result. This is how greatness is to be judged objectively in my opinion. We must look at all the facts and not one single fact. Having 64 entries in tournament increase the chances of being more exhausted when one gets to the final. Imagine having all 3 games matches before getting to the finals in a 64 entry tournament. Sure you can have all straight games but I am arguing the possibility of having 3 games matches. You are assuming some top players would be absent in this 64 entry tournament. What if they are all present? At least in the Olympic setting we can be sure that some top players will definetely be absent due to the quota system. In an Open (64 entry) tournament it is possible (and it often happens) that all the top players will be present. To answer your question which tournament do I consider to be the most prestigious, my answer is without a doubt the All England. The reasons are the players regard this tournament as highly prestigious and would not be satisfied unless they win at least once at All England even though the tournament held once a year unlike the Olympics. This tournament has a rich history being the oldest badminton tournament ever starting in 1899 which has a long list of badminton greats. Before there was the WC the All England is regarded as the unofficial World Championship. The tournament is held on a neutral ground due to the fact that England is not a badminton powerhouse unlike the World Championship whcih could be held in Malaysia, China or Indonesia which favours the local players from these badminton powerhouses. This is an Open tournament which allows for all the top players to compete and has a qualifying round which allows reasonably good players, who do not have sufficient world rankings due to injuries like Sony Dwi Kuncoro or even relatively new players like KKK/TBH, to participate. As a matter of fact if I am not mistaken KKK/TBH won the All England after going through the qualifying rounds. If this was the Olympics KKK/TBH would not be able to play and they were the best MD pair as proven by their victory in this year's All England. So the Olympics quota system based on each country allocated 2/3 entries in one event judged by their world rankings is flawed in thinking all the best players would be able to participate in this tournament. KKK/TBH the recently formed new pair has proven this to be the case.
If you're going to actually contribute to this thread then please do, but what purpose does insulting others opinions serve? There is so much we don't know, and so much we cannot predict. I think that alone is proof enough that you cannot always rely on your "facts and figures". I don't think there's any point continuing though. Why waste our time debating over our beliefs? We all obviously see the world very differently and I'd like to leave it at that. Though I would like to point out that when I mentioned luck, I was using that as one example. I did not mean to compare players with a very obvious difference in skill. Luck indeed plays very little part in such a situation. I completely agree with you that the All England is one of the, if not the most prestigious tournaments. Due mainly to it's history. An Olympic Gold though certainly has a history of it's own. For many athletes an Olympic Gold is the highest honor.
on the subject of great players in my personal opinion taufik hidayat is one of the great players as the seems to the player with by far the most talent out of all men singles.
sabathiel@ .....u won this debate...i gave u 9/10 points...Roger federrer was the greatest tennis player ever....I never yet c some1 can played like him...
Taufik is BY FAR the most talented player out of all the men's singles? Can you back up your opinion with some reasons as to why you think this is the case? Let's hear the arguments.
TBH/KKK Swiss Open I enjoy opinions which are humourous & frivilous at times because they take the stress out of daily routine - like the one "why so & so lost .. & the crazy excuses some of the fans posted. In fact there were a couple of times where I can laugh till I fall off my chair. IMO in instances like these, I will not take up a debate because obviously it's meant for fun. However, if you seriously want to enter into a debate, you have to do your homework esp. when you are up against someone like Sabathiel who I believe does research & thorough work before he post his views. I can't be wishy-washy about it because there is only one end result.
Ok ok then, I tried not to get into the debate, as my first post in this thread says . But I'm going to stick by what I said in this thread whether I thoroughly researched it or not as I strongly believe a lot of what I said is correct. I'm going to have to agree that some comments are quite funny (and perhaps some of mine are to some people as well >_>), sorry I wasn't in a great mood earlier. I think a lot of the crazy excuses are just people who refuse to admit that their hero can lose from time to time. I'm sure they know deep down that they were wrong .
Glad to know the weather in NZ is fine (figuratively). It's okay at my end...we are all badminton fans, aren't we??? Do have a good weekend!!!
Phaarix, Everybody knows their heroes can lose from time to time. We are all just zealous about our heroes. If they do lose, so be it. I am happy to say I am one of those who barrack for my heroes and write good things about them here but sometimes (or most times now with LCW )they lose. It is all in good fun (and humour) ....don't take anything seriously please.
Correction, KKK/TBH did not have to go through the qualifying rounds at this year's All England. In fact they were seeded 5/8. It was at the Malaysian Open 2007 that KKK/TBH had to play in the qualifying rounds and they won the MD there so the best pair was the unseeded pair who had to go through the qualifying rounds at this year's Malaysian Open.
Some things can and should be backed by evidence. Some things cannot. If I wake up tomorrow, and everyone else calls a fish a cow and a cow a fish, I cannot say they are wrong. I just have to change to suit everyone else. All the dictionaries must change, too. What are dictionaries compared to people? If I wake up tomorrow, and people think mass murder is a good thing, then Hitler becomes a hero. What can I do? Opinions matter. That's why the mass media is such a powerful propaganda tool. If I wake up tomorrow, and people think All-England is full of crap and it's the German Open that is the real deal, then the German Open is the real deal. Solid facts are important, but people's opinion matter also. Why would people still talk about Cryuff's Holland when it never won a single World Cup?
They had to qualify both in Malaysia and Korea. Starting from All-England, they had enough points to get straight into the main draw.
It is one thing to say I believe that I am right and to know that I am right. You don't have to research your arguments backing your opinion but you should at least have compelling things to say to back up your opinion such as giving compelling and persuasive statements. If I say that I strongly believe the earth is flat and provide no compelling evidence or reasons as to why I believe it to be so and say I am going to stick by it despite compelling reasons and evidence to the contrary then what does that say about my belief? It is easy to believe one thing but to elaborate and provide compelling reasons to back up your belief is another thing. It would benefit us all if people back up their opinions with compelling reasons/arguments. If one provides reasons and arguments and others shred it to pieces with better reasons and arguments it is best to conceed the point is lost to maintain one's credibility so one can be taken seriously on other matters if one has good arguments.
And they won both tournaments, yeah? by qualifying. What if they were paired before the Olympics and are not entitled to enter the Olympics. Wouldn't the best MD pair miss out on the Olympics which in effect reduce the competitiveness of the Olympics?
Well you just have to argue with persuasion and compelling reasons why everybody is wrong or better still provide evidence that proves everybody wrong. Christopher Columbus proved that the earth is round when EVERYONE else say it's flat. Now every sane person thinks the earth is round. Galileo believes the earth to revolve around the sun when everyone else believes the sun revolves around the earth. The Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo to retract his statement that he is wrong and he did retract with the qualification "but I am right". Today we all believe and know that earth orbits around the sun because of the arguments and evidence provided by Galileo. One person can change the whole world's belief. History has proven that to be the case.
I often wonder why you usually come across like an unsolicited BCF judge or matron...This is a forum, not a win -or- lose debate. So what if Sabathiel backs up his opinions with research ?(I want to say I do welcome good research) That does not mean his opinion is better though it may come across as more credible. Facts only tell part of the story and depends on how you interpret it. Logically a 64-entry looks tougher than a 32-entry (because of more matches) but actually the 32 is tougher because just about every match is tough .(compared to 64 where one or two matches allow a breather) Federer himself , after losing a Masters Series match,commented, 'You don't know how tough the Masters is. There are no easy matches and no rest days.' Grand Slams favour the experienced; Masters test the tough.9The SS is equivalent to the Masters) That's why Super Dan is finding the going tough this year. He could not complete a 3T(3 tournaments) like he could in the past when each T was a 64 compared to 32 now. He got Super Done earlier than I expected. That will teach him a lesson; my guess now is he played in GO07 maybe to thwart WCH from racking up much needed ranking points.(But I wouldn't worry if WCH can't make it for WBC07. Roslin is a better bet against LD) phaarix post 722 is splendid even though there are no facts or figures. However, if I have a major decision to make and I need a counter check, I'll ask phaarix instead of sabathiel because phaarix has a better hunch. In fact,if you ask enterpreneurs or wise leaders, they will tell you their major decisions are made less on limited or incomplete data and a lot on hunches based on experience. As for 'experts', some are better than others but it's dangerous to be beholden to them. The British physicist, Stephen Hawking challenged his professor, considered the authority of his field. Today he is regarded for his most important discoveries about gravity since Albert Einstein's modern theory of gravity about general relativity. Experts can go wrong and do go wrong and we have to question them to make progress. For example, I still consider AE as the 'prestigious' tournament with the Pitiful Purse but almost everyone else will disagree...... Sabathiel, let me say I appreciate the grounding in your posts although I don't agree with your viewpoints most of the time. I don't like to see phaarix cornered cos he's a wise guy and Joyous's comments may make your head big so I hope my input can help shrink it back to the good size. Personally I usually cannot include figures in my posts cos I don't have 2cents datamining skills but I do scan data to arrive at 'facts'. Truth is..I don't think I even pass the keyboarding speed set by the moderators!
Hmm, i have a funny feeling... ...this thread is gonna go into over time period......if not locked, soon(hope not)...
No right or wrong opinions There is no right or wrong opinion. What you stated are opinions that become facts. If you ask historians about war 'facts', you are going to get different interpretations and opinions. An opinion is the sum of a person's background, experiences esp,. emotional and level of knowledge on the topic.Opinions may change esp. in the light of more knowledge but unlikely to change if the opinion is entrenched emotionally.
First I must say you disagreeing with me doesn't shrink my head nor anybody who agrees with me makes my head big. People on this forum has no effect on me especially if their opinions are not backed up with good reasons and compelling arguments. If someone like the Pope agrees with me that would be a different story. I am not here to win debates because I don't get paid when as a lawyer in court when I represent my clients I get paid to win arguments. My frustration is with people who state their opinions without providing sufficient explanations as to why they hold those opinions. This type of attitude doesn't do anybody any good as nobody benefits from people producing unsubtantiated claims. Intelligent discussions/debate must be backed up with compelling arguments, facts or evidence if necessary. Hunches are fine but the person making the hunch must state to the audience that they are making a hunch and not disguise the hunch as obvious truth or credible opinion. There is nothing more dubious than pseudo truths based simply on a feeling. Furthermore how can someone's hunch be better than someone else's unless that hunch has been PROVEN to be correct by the obvious results. I am sorry to say that Phaarix hunch has not been proven to be correct and hence it is not better than my opinion which is based on facts, results, some evidence and compelling arguments. I have an open mind but I need people to point out with good reasons where my arguments fall with similar methods of good and intelligent debate. Until my opinions are proven to be wrong I would not change my mind. You talk about entrepreneurs and wise leaders who base some of their decisions based on a hunch but the numbers of these decisions based on a hunch is far less than the ones based on data and evidence. Most people and most decisions are based on rationality and data. Only gamblers make decisions on hunches and they are rare in the real world. These people are not the norm but rather the exception and many of them are wrong on their hunches. If they are right in their hunches they deserve to be in history as the greats such as Columbus who had a hunch that the earth is round and manage to prove it to be in history. I am sorry to say that Phaarix has not manage to provide any proof that he is in that league of people from what I have read on this forum. Who knows he is only young, 18 according to his profile (I am 38 by the way!) and he could be a potential great person in the future but unless he can provide us with proof that his hunches are correct we are stuck with treating him as an average person who simply has hunches and cannot prove them to be right and is wrong in the absence of any proof. I don't know about you but I can't see Phaarix being in the league of wise leaders being only 18 and as he confessed inarticulate. You say that Phaarix has a better hunch but on what basis do you judge his hunch to be better. Is it your hunch that he has a better hunch? I don't make hunches on this forum because what I am doing is providing a detailed and reasoned argument to back up by opinions. You talk about hunches made based on experience. What experience has an 18 year old has to offer relative to a 38 year old that makes his hunches superior to my reasoned arguments? Lin Dan is doing well in the SS this year with the exception of one tournament where he had an early departure. The SS is not equal to the Masters becaue the Masters only allows for the best to compete while many in the SS are not considered anywhere near the best in the game. Stephen Hawking has proven himself to be the greats of history and hence his judgement by challenging his professor is justified as a someone great in the making challenging a historical nobody (his professor, what's his name? Exactly nobody knows this guy!). Off course an expert can be wrong that is why there are so many experts but in the absence of proof that an expert is wrong and most if not all other experts agree with his opinions than we are stuck with what we call conventional wisdom. Fine, they all could be wrong but prove it that they are wrong. Columbus and Galileo proved it. So in my case I could be wrong too but all I ask is a detailed and reasoned arguments to prove that I am wrong. Once proven that I am wrong I will humbly admit that I am wrong but in the absence of superior arguments and proof that I am wrong I am free to hold my opinion and think that I am right. I have very compelling reasons to think so. Lastly you are not the only one who thinks that the All England is the most prestigious (maybe equal with the Olympics and WC) tournament. Many would agree with you. I think so. Phaarix also thought about it. I have read some comments from other people on this forum who thinks so too. Taufik wants to win it badly and so does Zhang Ning. So it is not true as you say almost everyone else would disagree.
