Actually I think Li/Liu have became a badminton legend after failing to take his cloth off at Thomas cup lol
Ehm that is true. He has won too many WC and OG to be put lower than Lee, thats what most of his fans think i guess?
He also had an overwhelming head to head record against Lee before he decided to "age" and to try new things (apart from badminton).
Yes, but that is because you are a fan and you presumably already have some context to it to know that that is not an easy feat. When I say story, I mean you have some appreciation of it, some knowledge of it otherwise it has no significance. For the average person who knows nothing about badminton, they probably couldn't care less about winning a tournament 8 times. Particularly given the common perception that badminton is a recreational garden game. I mean if you were the 8 times tournament winner for “rock paper scissors”, would anyone give a ... ? Besides, if it’s only about results (as you insinuate), why would anyone bother watching the matches? Just record the results it in your history books and shelve it.
No one is disputing that Fu is not one of the greatest – least of all me, as a fan. But he has always been part of a “partnership” to achieve what he had. So to consider Fu in isolation without acknowledging his partners’ contribution is a little unrealistic particularly given the calibre of CY and ZN. Anyway, my post was not really to debate how the credit for achievements could be apportioned but just to say that there is more than achievements alone in my opinion. Not sure how you came to that interpretation as I don’t think I said that. All I said was there are a lot of factors that would ultimately lead to winning titles, some within your control, others not.
Very interesting discussion. If you just look at the titles, Fu Haifeng is definetely up there. And don´t get me wrong, he was incredibly good. Maybe the best back court player ever and good defense as well. But for me he lacks that certain kind of brillance, the other candidates have. He was basically a powerhouse.And that he won his titles with different partners should not be weighted that much. Simply because his partners were Cai Yun and Zhang Nan, who both are at least on Fu`s level. Actually I would consider both of them even stronger. Compare that to Kido, Ahsan, Bach or Yoo. These players were pretty good, but not as exceptional as their partners (except Ahsan on certain occasions). So Fu Haifeng definetely had an advantage with his partners. And just looking at the big titles is not sufficient, because a little luck and good timing is alsways necessary. Just look at Setiawan, who could easily have more Olympic medals or WC titles. But he lost 3 years of his prime with an injured Kido, the Olympics 2012 among them. And Setiawan/Ahsan prime stopped 2015, a few months before Olypics in Rio. So don`t get me wrong, Fu`s 2 Gold and 1 Silver medals is amazing and he is up there. But skill wise, I rate Cay Yun, Gunawan and Setiawan definetely higher. Lee Yong Dae is a special case for me. He was such a strong allround player with flashes of brilliance. But his biggest strength was consistency. Of course he was good at the net, but I was never left in awe watching him, because it was always the same, without surprise elements.
You do have a point, but also notice how your top choices are all front court players. That's exactly where the conundrum comes into play: as a back court specialist, it is way harder for you to showcase your "brilliance" and it is not your role to do that in the first place. Your role is to be the solid workhorse that gets your partner in front the opportunity to finish the point, whether it's through raining down smashes or varying the placement and pace to get weak returns. Not saying that your current view is wrong, but would you have a different view if you assessed the back court players through this lens instead?
What stands out from Fu Haifeng's achievement was what he had achieved with Cai Yun. 1 silver and 1 gold OG plus 4 golds WC. Though ZN is considered the same level as the other contestants, FHF himself wasn't at the same level when he was partnered with ZN. He was much weaker in terms of his power and with injuries and all he wasn't the same FHF who had partnered with CY. He became more an all rounder player who could attack very strongly but also intercepted brilliantly at the front. ZN though not a power smasher, but he is excellent in placement smashes and could set FHF up nicely at the net (unlike his current partner LC). FHF had shown big improvement of his skills in front of the net and other aspects as well which he hadn't really displayed much in his previous partnership. And ZN, great as he was, he had to do double duties most of the time (many times even in Rio he had to play two all the way to the finals at the same time) he could not commit fully to their partnership all the time. Yes I agree with LYD. Consistent he was, but that's all there was about him. Nothing more nothing less. Different with CY, HS or ZN who could take chances and make things happened when it matters as Gill would say. That's why, unlike some people's wish, I want Kevin to be more like ZN or HS instead of LYD. Kevin is definitely someone who takes chances (a bit too much to our liking's) and can raise up to the challenge when needed.
True. And thats because I believe that front court play requires more talent/skill, while back court is more about physical strength / athleticism. Might be a little unfair, but I doubt that Tan could have done what Koo did, if he would have been chosen as the front court player.But of course being the best back court player ever is quite an achievement. And I certainly like a good smashing reign, expecially if it`s with variety (which I love Ahsan for). But the badminton magic happens at the net, Sukamuljo would be the next proof ;-)
Smashing non stop in steep angle, with power and directions requires a lot of talent or skill too, mind you. The way FHF did it, no other player can match him. And how many years has FHF done exactly that? Other players would have run out of stamina or get injured long long before FHF would beat a sweat And he isn't that bad at the net, his interceptions could run like a bullet. Crazy angles and powers at the same time really. His left arm wasn't to be underestimated for sure. The size of the muscles were mind blowing Kevin, Hendra and Zhang Nan. Would love to see them battle at the net. How FHF could have positive head to head against Hendra/Ahsan would probably because of ZN too I supposed
Regardless of all this, the original point is that LYD, while consistently one of the best, is (almost?) never considered as _the_ best MD player. Hence, even though KSS surpassing LYD's record would be considered a great achievement, it would not make KSS the best MD player.
do you only watch the sports for which you care about its history? if so you're definitely in the minority. think about how many people watch sports vs. how many of those people are historical experts of the sport they're watching.
No, originally it wasn't about Kevin surpassing LYD or about the best MD player at all. This all started when some people claimed winning one or multiple gold medals in majors like WC (or AG) golds were no different from winning another SS (more insignificant) title. And as regarding to the best MD player, it would all come to subjective point of view because MD always come in pairs. But if Kevin could surpass FHF's gold medal numbers with different partners, he would arguably be considered as the best
Ah, perhaps I had just referred to the more recent trigger Don't think we are in disagreement on this point No arguments with bolded. As for Kevin, I'm sure we won't be hearing the end of it should that day ever come
but wait, has cai yun won any high level tournament with any other partner? no, but also, there's no way for anyone to prove he could or could not have... correct? we can only scream/shout/type about it until we're exhausted, dizzy and/or bored from the circular conversation. fu hai feng is regarded as one of the all-time greats by his peers (players and coaches), past and present. if you were a retired player what would you rather tell yourself? a) I wish I had fu hai feng's Olympic and world championship results, or b) I wish I played like lee yong dae?
Nope. I didn't say that. No idea how you arrived at that… But in answer to your question, it’s usually the other way around. People develop an interest in a particular sport usually through watching it/participating and then want to learn more about it. Don’t forget that this was in response to your implication that results is all history cares about, which I don’t agree with. What has historical experts got to do with this? You don't need to be an expert to have enough of an interest to look beyond just results.
Again, I think you’ve missed the point. Firstly, there are two things here. The “if this, if that” that you describe are hypothetical (whether I agree with them is a different matter). These are speculative, opinion based. Secondly, the “turn of events” are the things that fell into place that contributed to winning the title. Sometimes there are events, sometimes there aren’t any. These are largely based on facts. Things that actually happened. Thirdly, I mentioned that there are other "factors" that may have contributed towards winning a certain title. Some of which may be the "events" that I described above, others may be deliberate positive actions by the players, their coaches or others that helped with the result.
