Now both Malaysia open and Korea open are level 2 tournaments, but the total prize for Malaysia open is $200,000 while Korea open is $300,000. How come? Do they have the same ranking points? Taipei open is just a level 3 tournament with $200,000 total prize also. I think it is so unfair. What is the deciding factor for the level? Why Korea open has to give $300,000 to have the same level as Malaysia open? It is not good to encourage the sponsors and no respect for the money poured in for this game.
I had thought that IBF was the stupidest in the world for many years, but now the stupidest just got stupider....
Minimum purse for a Super Series tournament is US$200,000. Organizers for any of these tournament have the option for raising more e.g. Korean Open ($300,000). So esssentially the ranking points for tournaments with prize money of $200,000 and above are the same. The exceptions, I think (correct me someone if I'm wrong) are the Olympics and world Championships.
There are only two Level 1 tournaments: WC and OG. They offer no prize money but obviously the highest of prestige. Then, comes Level 2 tournaments, called the Super Series, handpicked tournaments but with the condition that the minimum prize money is US$200k but the organiser can up it (I think this particularly saves All-England from sliding further in prestige). There is also supposed to be a SS Finals at the end of the season. Other than that, there are Level 3, 4 etc. events. Prize money is up to the organiser. So, even if Taiwan offers prize money that can match the SS, the event itself is not deemed prestigious enough to join the SS ranks. Personally, I think there is still some room for more tournaments to join the SS.
I don't think we should only use the prize $ amount to rank a level of the tourny, otherwise, Olympics and WC should rank even lower than many city/state/region or even club level of tournaments. The prize $ should only be considered as a side "bonus" to attract more higher level of player to participate, that's why certain level of tournaments you need a minimun to qualify, but there's no maximum. If purely use prize $ as the ranking system, the ranking can be greatly abused. Just think, say Bill Gates "present" $ 1 million to a new born baby, and forcely entitle the event as "award presentation" of xxx badminton tournament. Then, this baby will soon take over #1 seed in badminton, as he received the most prize $$$ (or even from multiple events).
SS rankings are only for SS tournaments, and the qualification for SS Finals is based on the SS rankings. It starts are beginning of year and ends before SS Finals. It is a sort of a copy of the Masters Series of tennis. BWF ranking are for all tournaments (including SS). It's period is for the past 52 weeks. Qualification for Olympics and WC will be using BWF ranking.
But then after one year, wouldn't SS rankings be the same as BWF rankings ?? Or they don't take account the big events and the team events ?? Like this it means that SS rankings is created to determine participants for the SS Finals ?
At the start of next, SS rankings will be back to zero. It's a new season. Everyone starts over. That's what I am assuming. But I think I am right.
The $ thing is just a bonus weather its $200,000 or $300,000 in prize money. The Prize money is not a deciding factor on ranking points. All superseries offers the same ranking points.
