Indeed that's exactly what he is reported to have said so please stick to that and not your inferences. Now, that is open to discussion. You may disagree to his likening the rivalry. I do not agree the rivalry is entirely comparable but that's another story. It's entirely different to say that he liken himself to Nadal or Federer based on the reported statement. Once again, your logic defies me. Taufik is not a spent force but as much as I support him, I cannot deny that he will have to dig very deep to beat LD or LCW (sparing a similar accident like NTM/CL/RS). The current yardstick for the World #1 LCW is whether he can beat his arch nemesis LD in important matches, not dissimilar to whether Federer can beat Nadal? I sincerely cannot find where LCW said he is like either Federer or Nadal.
Sorry but that is quite a ridiculous suggestion. Do you really think when LCW made that statement he considered himself to being in Federer's position, and for this reason likened his LD rivalry to the Nadal v Fed rivalry?? Come on boss, now you are just clutching at straws and completely ignoring the ordinary meaning of LCW statement. As i have explained countless times, the great Fed v Nadal rivalry is defined by the fact that the former has dominated the circuit for 4/5 years and won countless Majors, and often, but not always, comes up short in epic, closely contested battles with the latter in Major tournaments. LD v LCW rivalry - the former has dominated the circuit for 4/5 years and won countless Majors, and comprehensively beats the latter (who, by the way, has never won a Major) everytime they meet in Major tournaments. See the fundamental difference?? One is a great rivarly. The other is more like a one-sided rivalry... Here's the passage again. "It used to be Lin Dan against Taufik (Hidayat of Indonesia) but I have been able to challenge the Olympic champion now. The rivalry is something like Nadal against Federer" Give this statement it's ORDINARY MEANING. Pleaseee. LD = Olympic Champion = Dominates the Circuit = Wins everything = The Champ = Federer. TH = destroyed LD in 2005 world championships = was the only real challenger to the Champ = Nadal Now LCW believes he is also a genuine challenger to the Champ... And by the way, unlike Badminton, the World No. 1 in tennis does not have problems beating his arch nemesis in important matches. Because in case you don't know, the world no. 1 is Nadal Oh yes, rankings matter! (according to you)
i dont care much about comparison of ld vs lcw is liking to federer vs nadal rivalry because it is just child talk. The reality is self evident. Honestly, to really call lcw a truly #1 player, he has demostrate 2 things, not 1 as u have alluded. #1. he has to beat lin dan in big tourney #2. he has to do task #1 repeatedly. right now, lcw still trying to do task #1
LCW has simply played more tournaments than LD - we all know who the DE FACTO world no.1 is. But don't you see? nominal rankings matter to weeyeh, otherwise there is no possible similarity to the Federer V Nadal rivalry.
very disapointing to see all the people talking LCW down in this thread......the fact he is World #1, the fact that he is even competing at top level, the fact he has made finals in alot of the tournaments he has played in and the fact that he has been near the top of World badminton for the past 10 years or so...(no idea how long really just a geauss) that should all be enough for us to go :O WOW THATS SIMPLY AMAZING.... Give him the credit he deserves you arrogant fools.
WHo's talking down LCW? THe guy is class and is clearly the second best badminton player on the planet. The guy trains like a madman, and has even been known to over-train himself if he isn't properly monitored, because as talented as he is, he knows he needs to train hard to be the best. I totally respect and admire his work ethic and him as an athlete. However, we are talking about a statement LCW made. A very very bold statement, which was foolish and, at best, premature.
he compared his and LD battle to Nadal and Federer battle.....how is it foolish.......2 sports with 2 similiar battles.
Just happily found and reconfirmed that how important now LCW is....a statement he made can be widely discussed with twists and turns for past few weeks................. People are being too overly clever to make their very own interpretation and making their own conclusion to his statements.....like.........something similar rivarly with...., I am not in good shape to defend SG title,.....etc.... Maybe they are too worry,...if LCW who said was not in top form....suddently wins the title,.........when LCW lost like he did,....they cant really condemn him for that lost because he already told he is not well prepared right before the tournament started.... But the real reason....??
Yes, he did played more tournament than LD to be WR No. 1.....if LCW played more tournament than LD but not consistantly reached at least SF stage......he still cant over take LD for WR No. 1 And two weeks ago,...LD dropped to 3rd. and PG overtook the 2nd spot....U shd blame PG also.......simply played more taounament than LD to grb the 2nd spot in the world.....? or 2nd spot is not as important...? LD chosen to play less tournament that LD's decision,...dont blame LCW for being WR No.1...............I personnally think if LD to play as many tournament as LCW did......LD still the WR No. 1 in the world.....no doubt...!
LOL, maybe the 'cant really condemn him' part got sthing to do with it. Like we discuss in the other thread lor, other players also say "not in best condition" or "just recover "from whatever ailment never mind. PG, the WR#2,older than LCW, play many2 tournaments also, never mind. Other players also stimes make 'interesting' statements, including the 'real' no 1, never even posted also, haha. Maybe they all want to take over the job of Msian press.
Irrelevant, IMHO, but agree nevertheless. Still, relax the rigor and there are some similarity between both "rivalries". This is supported by LCW's use of "something like" instead of "exactly like" in the reported statement. The arguement is really where a certain party decides that comparing rivalry implies equating to the rivaling subjects. Notice the use of plural "important matches" in my original statement?
It is not impossible but one cannot be conclusive about that. But that's clearly how you have concluded and the reason for this conversation. No problem with that the comparison may not be accurate. You may have missed that I have clearly indicated my disagreement that the rivalry is comparable in the prior statement. This, however, is not the point of our disagreement. My point has always been that LCW's reported statement did not liken himself to Federer nor Nadal. IOW, A-B = X-Y implies that A must be X and B must be Y? Again, my good sir, you let your habit of misrepresentation surface. Where exactly did I say or indicated that ranking matter? Just because I mentioned that LCW is World #1?
exactly, this is the point... LCW should make statements by the racket, not by self-claiming talks...
Here's a big problem in your statement, though. A-B <<< X-Y (A,B: Federer, Nadal, X,Y: LD, LCW). The difference of success (in a consistent manner) between Federer and Nadal is much smaller, when compare to LD vs. LCW (please, no more Swiss Open). Both Federer and Nadal got their spots in the history of greatest players, consider their grand slam titles collection. LD also got his spot, but LCW... well, unless he pick up his pace, otherwise, he has no spot in the history, I have say.
Give me a break about the "blame". I can self claim that my own New York or US ranking points is way higher than LD+LCW+TH+PG combined. Because they never played any local tournament here. So, don't blame me for consider me being "self claimed better" than LD, LCW, TH, PG, etc. As that's not my fault either, that they do not come to compete. So, I can shameless say, for New York ranking perspective, I am much better, no doubt...
He deserves a lot of credit, but not to Nadal's level yet, until he can at least win a few major titles. Nadal got his spot in history, not because he won a few satellite title, but grand slam titles. In badminton, the grand slam type of titles are the likes of WC, OG, AE, etc, not Swiss Open or MAS Open. Btw, please take back the offended language for yourself...
Actually, why we all wasting mouth water here? No one going to listen to each other anyway. I guess a few years later, when both retired, let the history define whether such a statement is valid (consider the time stamp, though), or simply drawing laughs. As a fan, I wish ppl can laugh at me and consider myself as a "fool", if LCW can consistently pulling out great victories, and raise the meaningful trophies. His defense always amazed me. However, up to this point, I am been disappointed every single time, when it really counts.
Sure sure, we'll leave it as that. LCW did not necessarily liken himself to Nadal or Federer. I'll concede that for argument's sake. Arguing over semantics is irrelevant in the bigger picture though. Do you agree with that? The bigger picture being, saying his rivarly with LD is something like the great Fed v Nadal rivarly was foolish and at best premature. Fed is arguably the greatest ever tennis player of all time. Nadal is already an all-time great who, more often than not, has bettered the GOAT in the grandest of stages. Enough said. Please don't revert to your "but LCW is World no.1 who has trouble beating his arch nemesis in important matches. Not too dissimilar from Fed v Nadal?"
