Hmm.. ..so i take it, it basically boils down to experience (amending certain rules) and finance (prize-money) as the 2 main factors. As for the 1st factor, i do think they might have to amend a few minor rules to the current SS regulations to "improve the quality". Would they adapt similar rules that are being used in Olympics or World Championships events? As far as i know, those 2 are still considered the prime events in BWF. As for the 2nd factor, i do think it'll be the main injector should this plan progress. - Interesting catch. If they were to hold 4 GS tourneys, would the WC event be classified as a GS tourney? If it is not, then i would guess they will base the GS events on the prize-money being offered. - Another interesting catch. In tennis, the 4 GS events are viewed as they are because they're the same, year in and year out. Btw, for those familiar with the history or background of the 4 GS in tennis, would you guys chime in on the real reason(s) why those 4 were chosen? Is it because of the prize-money they offer? Or something else?
BWF made the rule long time ago..so far only China can have 2 SS but if other countries would like to have SS, China will lose one...thats why like MAS can have another Gold Grand Prix, not another SS... For US..trust me..Badminton is not that popular as I said that even Asian bank would not dig up the money to sponsor the badminton...but they are willing to sponsor Tennis.
I really doubt US is a good place for a grand slam tournament. The other sports dominate so much, it is difficult to gain a foothold. Just look at soccer. It's been trying for more than 30 years in the US and the success is limited for a sport called the world's most popular game. I think our grand slam badminton resources will have more potential in another country.
after reading the posts here, all the suggestions here are like discussion how to spend sponsors' allowances. I can hardly agree. the only way for better badminton is to industrialize it. Badminton itself should be able to generate profit, that's my key point. but unfortunately, more people here are interested in using badminton to enhance their nation's image and even humiliate other nations. China based Li Ning Co. is probably the biggest sponsors for badminton, and China is also the biggest market for badminton also, it is unwise to use GS hosting to punish China for the groundless accusation of their linecalls. It's too narrow minded. Where to host the GS, should depend on parameters such as profitability, like launching a business, profitability is the direction, also don't forget liquidity, solvency, and credibility. IBF should avoid negative cash flow on balance sheet for any tournaments. GS in the States will be a big burden for badminton development.
But this problem can easily be solved with the appointment of unbiased international umpires and judges. I assume that financing their attendance will not be a problem if BWF can raise huge funds from sponsors to increase the GS prize monies to a minumum of US$400,000 or higher. Errant countries have been given wide 'bad' publicity as a result of their misdemeanours and hopefully they have learnt their lessons. I also agree that GS must be commercially viable to sponsors and this is something the BWF has to work hard on since badminton has not attained that kind of a status as tennis.
I agree that there should be a business return but I do not believe it should be called a punishment not to be awarded a grand slam status. It is merely attainment to a set of standards that is the requirements. Agree on what you said, but how unbiased remains to be seen. And a country should prove itself to be unbiased. It should not need unbiased umpires and linesmen to be flown in!
I still think if there is a Grand Slam, then China should get one of them... Just make hawkeye a requirement for all GS. That's $20,000 additional cost. Prospective sponsors: Yonex All England Li Ning China Open Djarum Indonesian Open Microsoft US Open Let's call Bill Gates, a badminton fan himself, regarding the last point...
Sorry Krisna, as hauge implied, there's no chance of US Open being a Grand Slam event. Not intially anyway (don't you guys talk? )
Bill's not involved with MSFT operations anymore.....now if Mr. Balmer is a fan as well.... Although, I do question the relations between throwing $$$ to the prize money and making a sport more popular??
You don't need hawkeye IMO....just have big screens with replay for each tournament.... cause all you need is a reply from a good angle, and you're done.
Why 4 Grand Slams ? 4 is not a lucky number for Chinese. Make it 5 or 6 or 7 or 8. There is no need for Super Series events
I also don't think it is likely that the US Open can become a grand slam event in badminton... But hey, this is a thread to discuss and suggest, right? I suggest my idea anyway... [however unlikely it can become a reality] Bigger prize money will encourage prospective players from developed economies [Western Europe, North America, etc.] to actually decide to become badminton pros... With winning pros from their own countries as badminton heroes whose careers can be followed... then the overall popularity of badminton will improve. For instance, if Mr. XYZ from Spain is a big-time champion and apparently can prosper by playing badminton, the Spanish public will notice the sport more... More Spanish youngsters may take-up the sport as a result... But talented Mr. XYZ might not even choose pro-badminton as a profession if the income he can generate out of it is not high enough... I can live with that too...
Then, Hawkeye will have no bussiness......... There must a reason why tennis needs 'Hawkeye' instead of big screen replay....
why hawkeye, because it is a spectacle. Before badminton can attract sponsors, it needs to improve itself, become more professional in terms of broadcasting, graphic design, ceremony sequencies etcetc, all these aspects have to be modified to be better packaged and more marketable. thats what i find most disappointing about the sport, many commentators agree its one of the most dynamic sports, but a single camera with few replays do not do it justice. there should be unique angles for badminton filming, wayyy more speed guns, work in some computer analysis for tv, court should be more emphasized in terms of lighting and floor elevation and for love of god, please let the player towel down before they receive prizes some of these ideas may seem tacky, but can be tastefully integrated, and in the end, its purpose is to get more industries involved, and thats how you generate more purse money I think this switch to grand slams is a good idea, give advertisers more structure to play off of.
