I'm not really interested, it's just an opinion and I don't really think it's worth trying to change anyone elses. We've all put forth our own versions, so good for us . We can all pat ourselves on the back. I already have. But my definition of consistent is no more "right" than anyone else's. You can't make consistent 100% though or even Lin Dan isn't consistent. Beyond that, you can't really define an exact cut off point where someone is no longer consistent can you? So it's not worth trying to prove your idea of it is right, because that is impossible. No one to show you that your argument is off?... but I can see many that I believe have put forth very realistic arguments. You're too hung up on your idea that you're "right" when there is no right. I believe hcyong assumed that you meant Super Series *Champion* standard. Which is completely different. We can understand what you're saying. We just don't agree. However if you *do* rephrase your argument to "SS Champion" standard, then you may find a few more people agree with you. You're crystal clear, but how crystal clear do I have to be that I don't really think you're wrong, I just don't necessarily agree. No big deal. That's just shallow and you should be able to see that. The difference between a win and a loss could be as little as the luck of a couple of points. Lets look back to the Japan Open 2007. Taufik if I recall came within one point of 20 all in the last set when his strings broke on the final shot. In situations like that, a little luck is ALL that really separates the winner from the loser, and to base your entire judgement on that... and even go so far as to call it one of your "facts", is incredibly short sighted. Talk about an inconsequential statistic. It doesn't prove in any way that Taufik is not deserving of a title. Circumstances are hugely different for both players. You can hardly compare. You CAN'T prove anything (neither can I - just because I think he deserves one doesn't mean he necessarily should have one). It's just one of those things. You just can't, so don't bother... Also it's nice to hear your book has room for a few more should they prove themselves up to your personal criteria .
thanks for the corteous offer to put Taufik in your book - hopefully after HK finals already but why is LD remaining there forever? That's crazy and deletes your one-line paper automatically from all book lists of this world take a look at SH SS draw, LD might go home after his first match already- why do you wanna keep him in your book if this happens?
Here are the SS MS titles for the 34 played so far: LD - 10 LCW - 8 PG - 4 BCL - 3 CJ - 3 SDK - 3 BP - 1 LHI - 1 SS - 1. Lets try to define the following: 1)SuperSeries level players 2)SuperSeries winners, and 3)SuperSeries ‘reliable’ winners. For 1), by definition whoever qualified to play is a SS level player. For 2), again by definition all the 9 above are. With 3 ‘one hit wonder’ and 2 ‘consistent’ winners as in LD and LCW. SDK is an odd ball as he won 3 in a row in 2008, nothing before or ever since. For 3), I will say if he enters the tournament there is a very good chance that he will ended up on the top podium. Obviously, LD is in this category. LCW is not quite there yet as he needed ‘LD not in the same tournament to be a ‘reliable’ winner’. So, in summary. LD is a SuperSeries ‘reliable’ winner, LCW is a SuperSeries ‘consistent’ winner, PG, BCL etc are SuperSeries winners, and TH is a SuperSeries level player.
Wow, You have just summarized the conclusion of the debate...... LD, LCW are elite players and TH is a legendary player in my book.....
since we need to consider what's the fun for us watching the games one category's missing: most entertaining player the top place of this podium is occupied by Taufik, and there is nobody who is capable, qualified or even seen to replace him
It's good to see that BCL is no longer known as "Mr.SS Runner-up" . The above summary will change after each SS tournament. It's good to see that BCL is no longer known as "Mr.SS Runner-up", as many BCers used to tease him before. Will TH follow BCL's footsteps? - Win some SS titles, and then be removed from the BWF's Top 10 ranking players' list? .
Okay...here we go again...another long one... .. - Where have i tried to change anyone else's opinions? All i did was to defend my point of argument and contention. Maybe to you it seems i'm trying to change your or anyone else's opinions??. I also mentioned that if anyone else doesn't agree with my criterias and is happy with Taufik finishing as a Runner-Up, Semifinalist or QFist, then more power to them and we can all agree to disagree. So, what's the beef?.. - That's fine if your definition of "consistent" is no more right than anyone else. I just want to know or if you've already given it, could you repeat it again (if you have a different definition)? And if you read my previous posts carefully, my criteria for "consistent" is reaching the Semifinals or Finals Rds (this part is based on your requirements) close to or around 80% of the tournaments. Never did i mention 100% as "consistent", did i? If your definition of "consistent" is 60% of the time, that's fine too; but you've gotta back it up. That's all. - In what way? I provided the criterias on what i consider a Super Series "Champion" level player. I've backed it up. Sure, you or anyone else can provide your own criterias as long as you can back it up with facts and records. - Okay, then. I shall go with hcyong's term from now on just to make everyone else clear. Whether to agree or not, that's different story and i'm down with that. - Wrong in what? If you can disapprove my criterias of a Super Series "Champion" level player, i'd be willing to oblige and acknowledge so. Yes, you can disagree & for me it's no big deal. - 1 pt, tough luck, doesn't it? Yes, we can all assume. If LCW had better stamina and had less stage fright in last yr's OG and LD was more nervous, then LCW would have had a chance and probably win his 1st OG title. - Until he proves and shows us, it doesn't show that he is deserving a title. Even if he wins one SS title, in my book, at least, that still falls on the borderline of him joining LD & LCW. That's like joining Simon Santoso, LHI & BP group. - ????...I'm not arguing abt "Which player deserves a SS title or which player doesn't deserve a SS title"..Please re-read my criterias of argument in one of the earlier pages. - Again, if you re-read my previous posts, i mentioned a few players are on the borderline with joining LD & LCW's level. As long as they can show they can accomplish the criterias i've given forth. At the end, i just feel a few of you guys are just a bit over-sensitive with my criterias. Maybe can't even swallow the plain truth that TH is not a Super Series "Champion" level material. He could reach the Final Rd., but, not good enough or a few would say, not lucky enough, to win it all. Let's go, Taufik, show us you can win a SS title (and more)!!.. - Taufik will be on the borderline of joining LD & LCW should he win a SS title. To solidify it, he needs to prove that he can do so consistently over the span of 2 yrs. - LD doesn't have to remain in my criteria forever. For now, yes, because he still shows a consistent record. If he starts faltering and not winning SS titles over 1 yr period, then he'd drop out of the book. - Thank you for listing the SS title winners. - I'm fine with your 3 separate categories. However, i feel it's a bit complicated. - As i already mentioned, I never discount the other multiple SS winners. If you read my previous posts, i mentioned a few of the players are on the cusp or on the borderline of joining the likes of LD & LCW simply because they have a SS title under their belt. However, they're still not consistent enough in terms of performance in reaching the SF and Finals Rds, thus i can't really put them in the same level as LD & LCW. Btw, If you'd like to do another research & analysis on my criterias w/those above mentioned players, i'd be happy. ..i'll let others do the argument on those. But i'm not arguing abt who is an OG and WC Champion Level players. Yes, there's no question TH (along with others) are in it; that's pretty obvious. However, the list will be much more exclusive. Further, i feel it's hard to quantify who's a WC or even a OG Champion player because those events happen rarely (yearly, for now, for WC and OG every 4 yrs). For Super Series, at least there are 12 tourneys in one yr. and we'd have enough datas and records to give players a chance to be qualified in certain groups.
I just read this thread, and in some point I must agree, Taufik is more mature and friendly since his marriage, become a father, then left pelatnas. As a professional player, he has his own management, in which --realizes that not many titles he could get lately -- do everything they can to help him stay at top level. They know support from fans and good PR is one of the key, and that's what they did.
your wish is my command, i've created a new thread in the 'professional players forum'. anyone like to comment and discuss further can go there.
TH also didn't train much either ah... furthermore, how come OG and WC titles in 2004/05 needs to be "proven" by SS titles in 2007-09? TH garner his 35K points not only through beating lesser players. Unless you classify PG, Sony, PSH as "lesser players".
but TH is a gifted magician, has WC and OG titles, how can he loses to JP? ok, both lost to JP before but simon beat TH in the last denmark open. Simon is better of the 2 JP's victims simon's titles won by beating an oldie roslin hashim, and young marc zwielder. I don't call the latter two 'serious top pros'
Same way CH lost to SSM in OG....same way BCL lost to Yo-yo Hashim....the better player doesn't win the game 100% of the time. must be getting senile in your old age cooler, Taufik didn't even play in the last Denmark Open. wow...multiple sign of senileness in one post by cooler??? Yo-yo Hashim is the one that played in DO and Simon didn't play him.
Taufik is certainly a great player, but I don't agree on form being the deciding factor. Nowadays, Taufik would be unlikely to pull off a win against Lin Dan even if he was in his best form ever.
So what? XXZ was 2003 WC champion, he lost to Hafiz 0:15 in 2005 or 06. That loss does not take a bit away from XXZ's 2003 glory. Suppose you can stay your age, 60 years later almost surely TH will lose to you.
ya, my plate were full already and i shouldn't participate in this SS debate my point was TH is just not any player but a WC and OG winner, and able to lose to JP.
Hmm..here's a shorter reply.. - The way i look at it, most likely he hasn't train a lot for much of his career (from late teens to just before he left Pelatnas). If he does train much during that 10 yrs period, it'll most likely be in sporadic period (for certain tourneys). Yes, i realize nowadays he's unlikely to get a full blown training like before (because of other commitments). - I never brought up OG & WC as a comparison or criterias for a player to be put in a Super Series "Champion" level. Please follow the trail of who brought up the WC & OG & SS champions comparison. - If you read my post #106 and get my point, all i'm trying to point out is that if TH had met LCW, LD, CJ or BCL often, in earlier Rds. (R32 or R16), in those tourneys, most likely he won't finish as high and most likely he won't get that 35k pts. - Do you, personally, feel PG, Sony, PSH are "lesser" players than both LD & LCW??(in other words, what are the chances of them beating LD & LCW often/consistently?)..if you say "Yes", then that's my answer, too.
