Has LCW won any 1st tier tournaments?

[Topspin]

We do not count tournaments as tier one, tier two, etc, that's not how it's categorized. So far, No Msia player have ever won OG or WC. TC, Uber, Sudirman CUp are Team events, Msia have only won TC.

The terms used are : Major(OG, WC, AE-badminton fraternity considers AE as a major title ), SUper Series, GP Gold, GP, International Challenge.... We do not consider World Junior Championship was level 1 either as it's a junior tournament for Under 19 only.
That's why your questions seem a bit weird.

I agree, WJC is only for under 19, however, its technically still classified as a tier one tournament for ppl under 19. But I do agree that since its only for ppl under 19, its not considered as prestigious as the other tournaments.

However, on the senior level and for individual events, then the only tier one tournaments are OG and WC right?

I understand if some ppl go by the terms like majors, SS, etc instead. But there are also ppl out there who classify tournament by tiers, thus it is why I'm asking the question.

 

[lcleing]

So in conclusion, the tier one tournaments in badminton are:

OG, WC, TC, UC, and SC. AE does not count correct?

Wikipedia:
"The Thomas, Uber, and Sudirman Cups, the Olympics, and the BWF World (and World Junior Championships), are all categorized as level one tournaments."

So if this is true...does that mean LCW technically haven't won any "tier one" tournaments up to date??

That's not right either. OG is not sanctioned under BWF, therefore it cannot be count as a 1st tier tournaments.

The reason why people rarely list SC and TC as the major achievements of a player is because it's a team event. It means that you could get on the team list, not play any match(or lose all your matches) but still be able to "win" the tournament with your name on it(that's if your teammates won it for you). Ironically, you can also win all your matches in SC and TC(just like what LCW did in TC 2008) and not win the TC because your teammates lose it.

So, tier 1 tournament(except WC) only reflects the overall strength of a nation, rather than how good a player is. That's why when we talk about a badminton player's career, we talk about majors, not the tier of the tournament. AE is arguably the hardest tournament to win(hence considered a major) as it's the oldest tournament and all the top players from all around the world take part in it, unlike WC and OG which the entries are restricted and not all the top players get to play in them.

 

[Topspin]

That's not right either. OG is not sanctioned under BWF, therefore it cannot be count as a 1st tier tournaments.

The reason why people rarely list SC and TC as the major achievements of a player is because it's a team event. It means that you could get on the team list, not play any match(or lose all your matches) but still be able to "win" the tournament with your name on it(that's if your teammates won it for you). Ironically, you can also win all your matches in SC and TC(just like what LCW did in TC 2008) and not win the TC because your teammates lose it.

So, tier 1 tournament(except WC) only reflects the overall strength of a nation, rather than how good a player is. That's why when we talk about a badminton player's career, we talk about majors, not the tier of the tournament. AE is arguably the hardest tournament to win(hence considered a major) as it's the oldest tournament and all the top players from all around the world take part in it, unlike WC and OG which the entries are restricted and not all the top players get to play in them.

I kindly object to this.

According to Wikipedia, OG is considered a 1st tier tournament.

The Thomas, Uber, and Sudirman Cups, the Olympics, and the BWF World (and World Junior Championships), are all categorized as level one tournaments.

Of course...unless if wiki is wrong.

And I agree that a player's accomplishment as an individual shouldn't have team events factored in (like TC).

However, for individual tier one tournaments, its OG and WC correct?

And I disagree that AE is harder to win than OG or WC, but of course this is subjective. Notice how players like LD and Taufik only cries after winning the OG? (and also WC for Taufik)

 

[lcleing]

I am not sure who wrote the Wiki, or edited it.But I am pretty sure OG is not sanctioned under BWF. Under BWF official website, OG is not part of the tier 1 list. See the link below.

http://www.internationalbadminton.org/page.aspx?id=11245

So the only individual event with a tier 1 status goes to WC. I think you misunderstood, I did not say that OG is not considered a major here, I am only saying that AE it's "arguably"(note the choice of word) harder to win because the pool of players participating in it could be more competitive due to the selection criterion in WC and OG(of course this is subjective), ie. a nation only have a limited no of entries in WC & OG + the less accomplished players get to participate in WC/OG over better players from bigger nation(like China) due to restriction on entries.

OG appeared to be prestigious because it's held once in every four years. But you also have to take it's historic background into consideration, badminton only come into Olympics during 1992.So it's kinda unfair (in a way) to only consider OG as the all and be all achievement in a player's career since the older generation of players were deprived of the opportunity to play in it. Of course if you have Olympic medal under your belt, it's a big bonus.

Over to you sir.

 

[extremenanopowe]

definition, u won. AE is not in 1st tier. Emotionally most will think AE is 1st tier. Anyway, have fun and you won the wager.

 

[eaglehelang]

...............
However, on the senior level and for individual events, then the only tier one tournaments are OG and WC right?

I understand if some ppl go by the terms like majors, SS, etc instead. But there are also ppl out there who classify tournament by tiers, thus it is why I'm asking the question.

On senior level, OG, WC and AE are considered as major tournament for badminton. No matter how many times you ask, the different people you ask here, same answer.

Wikipedia are written by human beings, sometimes their info can be wrong or outdated(like getting names of AJC winners wrong), happened before.
If refering to BWF website, only TC/Uber, Sudirman Cup, WC, WJC, World Senior are Level 1 tournament. By definition also, there many different types of definition.

The ppl out there who classify it that way are perhaps not badminton fans, the most die hard badminton fans I would think are from this forum, LOL.

 

[lcleing]

Sorry, I should clarify my stand too. I too think that OG, AE and WC are considered majors. Regarding about tier 1 tournaments...I don't think many people pay attention to a tournament's tier. At least not here.

 

[Topspin]

I am not sure who wrote the Wiki, or edited it.But I am pretty sure OG is not sanctioned under BWF. Under BWF official website, OG is not part of the tier 1 list. See the link below.

http://www.internationalbadminton.org/page.aspx?id=11245

So the only individual event with a tier 1 status goes to WC. I think you misunderstood, I did not say that OG is not considered a major here, I am only saying that AE it's "arguably"(note the choice of word) harder to win because the pool of players participating in it could be more competitive due to the selection criterion in WC and OG(of course this is subjective), ie. a nation only have a limited no of entries in WC & OG + the less accomplished players get to participate in WC/OG over better players from bigger nation(like China) due to restriction on entries.

OG appeared to be prestigious because it's held once in every four years. But you also have to take it's historic background into consideration, badminton only come into Olympics during 1992.So it's kinda unfair (in a way) to only consider OG as the all and be all achievement in a player's career since the older generation of players were deprived of the opportunity to play in it. Of course if you have Olympic medal under your belt, it's a big bonus.

Over to you sir.

I disagree that AE is "harder" to win than the Olympics. Of course again, this is all subjective.

I think overall, the top badminton players play at their absolute highest level during the OG like their life depends on it. The reason for this is because a Gold medal at the Olympics will bring a lot more honor to the country than an AE victory. Just as an example, I'm sure that if LCW were to win a Gold medal for Malaysia at the Olympics, the country would celebrate a lot more than when LCW won the 2010 AE. This is why I think the OG is more prestigious and "harder" to win than the AE.

I agree with you that the OG is not the "all and be all" of badminton. But if you put it into perspective, I think OG weighs more than AE. Also I agree that OG can't be used to measure current players against past player's accomplishments, but I think its a fair comparison for any player who started their career after 1992.

 

[pBmMalaysia]

yes its the same answer - og, wc and ae are considered as major tournaments and

this is probably the jia yu and the boleh fans can agree once in their life time

but most important this year is the 100th year all england

its the most prestigious tournament because of her age - 100 years

anything that is old and becomes an antique is valuable

unless of course its woman (sorry ladies)

 

[Topspin]

yes its the same answer - og, wc and ae are considered as major tournaments and

this is probably the jia yu and the boleh fans can agree once in their life time

but most important this year is the 100th year all england

its the most prestigious tournament because of her age - 100 years

anything that is old and becomes an antique is valuable

unless of course its woman (sorry ladies)

I agree that OG, WC, and AE are all considered majors.

However the topic of this thread was about tier one, so it has nothing to do with the topic.

But now I realize that most ppl go by majors and not by tiers, so I guess it doesn't really matter now does it

However, "its the most prestigious tournament because of her age - 100 years, anything that is old and becomes an antique is valuable"

That statement is wrong in many ways, which I'm not even going to bother explaining. Oldest tournament =/= Most prestigious. (eg. OG vs AE)

Of course....this is all my opinion

 

[pBmMalaysia]

I agree that OG, WC, and AE are all considered majors.

However the topic of this thread was about tier one, so it has nothing to do with the topic.

But now I realize that most ppl go by majors and not by tiers, so I guess it doesn't really matter now does it

However, "its the most prestigious tournament because of her age - 100 years, anything that is old and becomes an antique is valuable"

That statement is wrong in many ways, which I'm not even going to bother explaining. Oldest tournament =/= Most prestigious. (eg. OG vs AE)

Of course....this is all my opinion

you don't have to explain

i am sure you know thats only a figure of speech

its to show us its a different ae, its the 100th

same goes to 100th wc

that is, if we can live for another [100-(2010-1977)] years

and so you found out here to night

most people go by major not tier

i think your thread just expired...

 

[limsy]

lol
please allow me to say this
no one will look at tier one or tier one hundred

people look at major,ae is major or not,asian games is major
people debate because people thinks MAJOR is the important issue
u are the 1st people to bring up the tier one issue which no one will agree with ur view as this is not a correct measurement
if yes,world senior championship will be the big title too,lol

anyway
to answer u thread question
no,lcw doesnt

settle
relax
and enjoy indonesia open and world cup

 

[Topspin]

you don't have to explain

i am sure you know thats only a figure of speech

its to show us its a different ae, its the 100th

same goes to 100th wc

that is, if we can live for another [100-(2010-1977)] years

and so you found out here to night

most people go by major not tier

i think your thread just expired...

I also think that all AE winners are equal...whether if its the 100th, 99th, 32nd, 1st, etc. I don't think its fair to discredit all the other 99 AE winners. A win is a win, and each AE win is the same as the rest. The 99th or 101th winner shouldn't be looked down upon as "less" when compared to the 100th or the 1st.

 

[badadum]

The critics of LCW used to say that Dato hasn't won any "major" tournament. Just like LD was getting dished by the fact that he never won OG title (until 08).

Now that he has won the AE, the excuse will switch to AE is not a "tier 1" tournament? Interesting, yet the argument ring hollow.

Just to show ppl will always find fault regardless on one's achievement.

 

[Topspin]

lol
please allow me to say this
no one will look at tier one or tier one hundred

people look at major,ae is major or not,asian games is major
people debate because people thinks MAJOR is the important issue
u are the 1st people to bring up the tier one issue which no one will agree with ur view as this is not a correct measurement
if yes,world senior championship will be the big title too,lol

anyway
to answer u thread question
no,lcw doesnt

settle
relax
and enjoy indonesia open and world cup

wow sorry please don't hurt me

if yes,world senior championship will be the big title too,lol

I agree that World Senior Championship is considered a big title too, lol

Just teasing, peace.

 

[cooler]

wait until lin dan won it
then asian game will be considered
because eventhough lindan said in press interview that taufik is still greater than himself by holding 2 asian games gold,his fans doesnt admit that

unlike TH, LD is generous and praise his opponents often, and don't bad mouth on his opponents
LD pumps fist and kick rackets in front of boleh fans tho, just for cooler

 

[Topspin]

unlike TH, LD is generous and praise his opponents often, and don't bad mouth on his opponents
LD pumps fist and kick rackets in front of boleh fans tho, just for cooler

Haha I personally feel that LD and TH are both excellent players...and I guess "maybe" LCW as well?

 

[limsy]

as the answer is there(the answer is no)
i think the thread should be closed to avoid some post like number 36 which totally irrelevant to the thread title

 

[pBmMalaysia]

post #36 and #37

i think cooler you are talking to yourself

i am out off here...

 

[cooler]

Hello fellow badmintoncentral-ers, I'm new here so please excuse my noobiness .

My question is: has LCW won any 1st tier tournaments up to date?

I'm asking this because I was debating with a friend whether LCW has won any 1st tiers or not, and my friend brought up the fact that LCW won the 2010 All England. However, is All England even considered a "first tier" tournament? I know that the Olympics and WC is considered 1st tier for sure...but what about All England?

yes, your fren is technically correct but u have to look at how lcw won the 2010 AE.
All the stars and planets lined up that week for lcw.
u see,
- lcw didn't played any chinese players LD, BCL and chen jin.
- tago did all the dirty work for lcw, beating chen jin and bcl.
- ld being generous, let bcl beat him
- the line judge lost his vision at the MS final match point lah